Hands-on with Nikon&#39;s NIKKOR Z 28mm F2.8 Special Edition

The difference is that the Canon is a real lens – which now, 40 years later, still should work as well as it did then, and won't break anytime soon, either. This Nikon lens, on the other hand, is a cheap piece of plastic with hardly any amount of glass inside, made to look like an old lens. All appearance, no substance.

Jul 24, 2021permalink

sirhawkeye64

Yes this is plastic, however today's "plastic" lenses aren't like they used to be even 10 years ago. I mean everyone complains about the plastic mount. It's not that bad unless you drop your camera or bang it into something (at which case you may have more to worry about then the plastic mount on the lens... and it's $300. Not like a $2000 lens). People need to adjust their expectations to what they are paying for something. Spend $300, you're probably getting $300-$500 worth of performance (optically and mechanically/durability).

Nov 16, 2021*permalink

Plastic mounts break, frequently. Durable plastics exist, but they're expensive, and lens manufacturers don't decide to use plastic mounts for durability, they choose them for cost reduction and profit maximisation. And Nikon is the most radical of all manufacturers with this. I don't complain about the lens just because of plastic, though. It's also a cheap retro-lookalike design that mimics yesterday's unbreakable full-metal lenses, which makes the plastic mount even more ridiculous than it already is by and of itself. The lens is also slow (as in aperture). I wouldn't buy something like that even for $150.

Olympus, by the way, tried something similar back when Micro Four Thirds pioneered as the first mirrorless system, but, while keeping plastic mounts for some of their cheapest lenses, they have at least got rid of that faux retro design in the meantime.

Nov 17, 2021*permalink

sirhawkeye64

Plastic mounts break, yes, but at least for me, on all the plastic lenses I've had in the past (and currently) I never broke a mount. Now normally I am extremely careful with m ygear, but they have endured some unintended pain over the years but have yet to break a mount. Also the plastic mount argument is probably more valid for heavier lenses, like a 24-70 or 70-200 especially, where a lot of weight is being supported by the mount, but for something like a 50mm or even like the 28 SE, it's not enough weight to be of concern for most people. And for the "cheaper" lenses (like the DX 18-55 for example) you will probably break the barrel or zoom mechanism before you bust the plastic mount to be honest, if you are being rough with your lenses.

Nov 17, 2021permalink

The Fuji 28/2.8 is much smaller and optically very good.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

forest dream

XF 28mm F2.8 only APS-C lens.
$999 Nikon Z5 (FF) + $299 Nikon 28mm F2.8 may be good affordable stills photography gears (for who can live with 4.5 fps).

Jul 2, 2021permalink

Well, it also covers much smaller image area being APS-C lens.

With the Z system, you have upgrage path to full frame. Something that is not available with Fuji X system.

Jul 3, 2021*permalink

forest dream

Agree that "With the Z system, you have upgrage path to full frame.".

But why upgrade, if want FF, $999 Nikon Z5 (FF) + $399 Nikon 28mm F2.8 SE same price as Nikon Z FC kit set.

Jul 3, 2021*permalink

Exactly - the Fuji lens is much smaller because it was designed for DX sensor - like all Fuji x-mount lenses. If I wanted a FF body I would get a FF body. Nikon's mistake is thinking everyone wants FF but gets DX until they can afford FF. Not true.

Jul 3, 2021permalink

forest dream

If Nikon thinking everyone wants FF but can't afford, please more affordable FF body like $999 Nikon Z5.

Nikon Z5 issue is 4.5 fps to low, so at least 6fps like D750.

If Nikon offer more affordable lightweight poly-carbonate body FF ($800 Nikon Z5 lite)...

Jul 3, 2021*permalink

ecka84

XF 28F2.8 is like FF 43F4.3. And FF 28F2.8 is like XF 18F1.8. You can't have that for $299 from Fuji. XF 18F2 costs $600. APS-C is so overpriced.

Jul 3, 2021*permalink

Son of Thunder

Full frame is super affordable. I got into photography in the nineties Photography is a expensive hobby. But go back and look at old camera reviews the original 5D was over 3000 dollars and it was the most affordable full frame the came the D600 and the D6 now depending on what time of the year it is you can find the RP for under a grand with lens or a z5 for a grand with no lens. I find these price very reasonable

Jul 3, 2021permalink

So - just to be crystal clear - this is being launched with Zfc, but - it covers FF image circle. So - you can slap this on a Z6 and get true 28mm lens. Right?

Jul 2, 2021permalink

mcshan

Yes.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

So - to be crystal-crystal clear - Nikon still doesn't have a DX
prime lens.

Jul 2, 2021*permalink

For Z mount no, but for F mount yes.

Jul 3, 2021permalink

pouwj

Yes they do have a Z Mount - DX Prime Lens - you are looking at it (among all the other Z mount S primes). The fact it also fits a FF Z mount seems kind of irrelevant. Take the 27mm F2.8 Fuji Lens - isn't that considered a prime lens? You have to multiply that one also by 1.5 to work out the true focal length exactly as you do here. So, if you are comparing both against each other, both are a prime lens that work on a crop sensor camera and provide the same focal length. Unless I am missing something?

Aug 9, 2021*permalink

The fuji lens is 23mm long. The nikon is 43mm long. So - no, Nikon does not have any DX primes for Z mount.

Aug 9, 2021permalink

What?? There is the Z 28/2.8 lens and soon also Z 40/2. There is no 43mm lens.

Aug 9, 2021permalink

Physical length of the lens sweetheart.

Aug 9, 2021permalink

istscott

There is no inner barrel shift while focusing? If so it seems pretty nice! I like fully internally focusing lenses. Hopefully the standard version will have a metal mount and gasket.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

It will not

Jul 2, 2021permalink

Siobhan_K

Full-frame image circle, weather resistant, at a pretty quick aperture, and in an old-school compact-prime design, for $300?

If the IQ is good, then winner winner chicken dinner, Nikon. I understand the pairing with the Zfc, but honestly my first thought was full-frame: what a great general-purpose / walk-around / travel / pocket / backup lens for a Z5 (or any Z)!

The industry needs so much more of this: Bang. For. Buck. If the Z-lens roadmap 40/2.8 looks like this and is priced like this, it'll be a *killer* pair.

Jul 2, 2021*permalink

Agree, but the 40mm lens will be F2, not F2.8

Jul 2, 2021permalink

Wait - is this a FF lens?

Jul 2, 2021permalink

it is not weather resistant. It doesn't even protect the camera with a rear gasket. It is 'drip' resistant, though probably not while attached to a camera!

Jul 2, 2021permalink

Deliverator

Yes, Brownie, it's full frame.

Jul 7, 2021permalink

Chris59

A FF lens of that size and those specifications, I predict major vignetting. Ultimately, the proof of the pudding is always in the eating - specifications alone are virtually meaningless.

Aug 24, 2021permalink

Well - vignetting - along with predictable distortion - can all be handled very well by software. Low sharpness is much harder to correct.

Aug 25, 2021permalink

Anastigmat

The tiny front element is a giveaway that it is a new design. May be it is more like a double gauss design that is similar to that used for 50mm lenses, instead of the retrofocus design of the SLR camera wide angle lenses. The article says the rear element sits close to the sensor so it is official. It is NOT a retrofocus design.

Jul 1, 2021*permalink

Roland Karlsson

The rear element is big. This is a quite common design for digital lenses. With a big rear lens you can have a tele centric rear pupil, which is good for digital sensors.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

achim k

I once had an Olympus XA compact camera for film, similar lens design with a big rear element, probably for a small and flat camera without an extending lens. Sharp images, but strong vignetting, even stopped down. I hope this nikon lens will do better in this regard.

Jul 3, 2021*permalink

Roland Karlsson

Achim - I do not thing you need to worry. XA was a super compact camera.

Jul 4, 2021permalink

Chris59

achim k - Quite so. A FF lens of that size and specification virtually guarantees strong vignetting.

Aug 24, 2021permalink

travelinbri_74

Very curious to see how this lens performs. Love that is is 299. Sony releases small G loses for 600 while the Nikon is half that; plus 28 and 40 are my favorite street FLs. If this lens ends up being best in class - probably unlikely - I might pick it up with a Nikon FF body.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Anastigmat

The lens looks compact. That means it is probably NOT a retrofocus or reverse telephoto design that is used for wide angle lenses designed for DSLR cameras because of the mirror making the lens flange to film or sensor distance longer than the focal length of the lenses. Leica rangefinder camera lenses traditionally had the advantage of not needing to rely on retrofocus designs because it has a short distance between lens flange and film/sensor. The absence of a mirror also allows the rear lens elements to protrude into the camera body. That advantage resulted in more compact wide angle lenses and also sharper images. Sadly, lots of wide angle lenses for mirrorless cameras have merely been existing retrofocal designs fitted with a mirrorless camera lens mount, making them more bulky and not any sharper. Looks like camera makers are finally making an effort to design sharper wide angles for mirrorless cameras that the format allows.

Jul 1, 2021*permalink

S Yu

The ZM Distagon 35/1.4 is retrofocal, and fast.
I'm strongly against lenses that have tiny front elements, they look like their barrels need a diet.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

Pixel8888

Fuji has a little pancake XF 27/2.8. It has the same small diameter front lens. It's tack sharp corner to corner. But it does only cover apsc. Will be very interesting how the Nikon lens performs on a FF sensor in terms of corner sharpness and vignetting. Big plus for Nikon introducing some small 2.8 lenses. Perfect fit for the smaller mirror-less bodies.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

S Yu

They allow the diameter of their mount to limit how small they're willing to let the barrel go, so going slow will not result in a corresponding decrease in size. The slower they go, the more plastic housing and the less glass you get.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

Frage

If any company could make a "Purists" MILC camera, that would be Nikon with its F mount manual lenses. Millions of lenses in users hands!!! they could make a mirrorless camera with F mount in DF Style for the price of a Z5. They could even made a Mirrorles F3, but no they go and clone a FM2 and make it an APS-C.
I am sure all those people haven those precious manual primes would be very interested in one.

People having to buy new lenses for their new camera would prefer to jump ship altogether, obviously to the very agressive Sony ship.

Instead Nikon chooses to make a rehaused Z50 and launch it with a lens which resembles a classic one but is cheaply made.
Even if I do not use Nikon privately I have a lot of respect and admiration for all the iconic cameras and lenses they brought to the people along 100 years of history, but the products they launch lately make me very sceptical about its future.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Anastigmat

You can use manual focus F mount lenses on the high end digital SLR cameras such as the D750. They will meter in aperture priority mode. Just turn the aperture ring on the lens and the camera's metering system will choose the correct shutter speed. The in focus green light will come on. There is no need to design a mirrorless camera to use AI and AIS mount lenses.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Pixel8888

But these manual lenses don't have auto diagraphm on a mirrorless Nikon. That's what the little lever on the backside of the AI/AIS lenses did. The adapter and the mirror-less camera do not get the information from this lever.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

The market has moved on. If they would make products like they did 40 years ago, they would be bankrupt in a year. With current technology a lot of legacy technology is obsolete. For example: distortion and colour fringing can easily be corrected in software resulting in much simpler and lighter designs which are actually sellable.

Jul 3, 2021permalink

Frage

@rwol good points.

Jul 3, 2021permalink

Pixel8888

@rwol1970 Isn't it the other way around. Lenses today aver over designed and huge/heavy to excel in these online pixel peeper tests. My 50/1.8 Nikon AF made in Japan was small and excellent. I still use my old Nikon 105/2.5 AIS on my Fuji XT2, it works perfectly fine. Film rangefinder lenses like the Voigtlander CV15/3.5, CV35/2.5 or Leica LTE (Thin Elmarit) 90/2.8 where tiny (!). Great move from Nikon to introduce a 28/2.8 covering FF, that's actually small.

Jul 4, 2021permalink

Rob890

Still stuck in the past nikon. New mount and they still cripple their APSC

Jul 1, 2021permalink

How?

Jul 1, 2021permalink

The Nikkor Z28mm is 5mm shorter and 8mm wider than the Pentax FA77mm also currently being looked at by dpreview.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

valdazis

I wonder how it compares to Fuji 27/2.8

Jul 1, 2021permalink

JEROME NOLAS

Buy one and test it!!! :)

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Not so relevant IMO. You want to know how if performs on a Nikon Z-series camera. I don't think anyone will switch camera-systems because of one lens.

Jul 3, 2021permalink

valdazis

In terms of size Fuji definitely looks more attractive and has better choices of smaller lenses. I would invest into a small a la street style package with 2-3 compact primes for portability, Nikon at the moment cannot offer that.

Jul 4, 2021permalink

MrALLCAPS

Welp, looks like I'll be getting rid of my Z6. My favorite focal length is 40mm and I've been waiting on the pancake for a while now and it has a plastic mount?

No thanks.

Nikon as good as the Z6/7 is has made too many early mistakes. Useless battery grips, dual card slots, rushing to fix this mistakes with the Z6/7 MkII. I'm sure that hurt them financially, not to mention covid slowing up production. But to cheapen a lens with a plastic mount?

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Well, the SE version does, but will the regular version?

Jul 1, 2021permalink

What's wrong with a plastci mount? What do you do with your camera and lenses that plastic isn't sturdy enough? Pretending to be a war or extreme wildlife photographer?

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Atahualpa

The lens is rather short, so there won't be excessive force on the mount

Jul 3, 2021permalink

MrALLCAPS

Plastic mounts chip easier, Crack while mounted, if you were to acidentially drop the camera, or bump it against something hard, even warp.

Don't have to pretend I'm a war photographer or in the wilds of Africa to know what my kit goes through and what I would rather prefer.

Say what you want, exaggerate how you want, Everyone in the camera industry equates plastic mounts as "cheap", "cost cutting " and "kit".

I'm good, thanks.

Jul 3, 2021permalink

People think plastic = cheap but it’s not always true. In this case, it is one of the cheapest Z lenses made. I’m sure it was for weight and to keep costs down.

Jul 3, 2021*permalink

FurryBalls

If any lens in the lineup is getting plastic mount it has got to be this cheap and light weight 28mm prime.
If the plastic is not biodegradable and the lens is properly used as it is intended to, the mount will last longer than any human would. In modern lenses, PCBs and motors always fail before the cosmetics.

Jul 3, 2021permalink

sandy b

Motorcycle helmets, car bumpers and assault rifles are made out of PCB.

Jul 4, 2021permalink

FurryBalls

Was referring to PCB (Printed circuit board). The lens mount is likely made of ABS.

Jul 7, 2021permalink

sandy b

I thought you meant polycarbonate. Lol

Jul 7, 2021permalink

Andrew Higgins

If only the latest Z lenses carried on with this iconic Nikkor lens design style... Nikon has a fantastic heritage
What a super 28mm lens, shame about the cheap plastic mount though, and great Zfc too. Want!

Jul 1, 2021*permalink

Yes. I miss the old days when Konica, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Pentax film era lenses all had a bit different look.
Virtually all the lenses and bodies these days have the same fascia and construction.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Photodog2

Yea, today most houses are beige colors and most cars are silver/gray. Boring. Most people just want to fit in and be part of the crowd. Let's get design and style back everywhere including cameras and lenses.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

StevenN

@Gesture -- Don't leave out Contax, Miranda, Topcon and Yashica!

Jul 1, 2021permalink

MrHollywood

Some folks really miss the point of this lens...and the Zfc.
Plastic mount is PERFECT on this lens and saves weight. What would a metal mount add beyond weight? I never even heard of a plastic mount being an issue. On another note, why worry over the Zfc not being FX? Most of us know that a crop sensor, such as the one used in the D500 and now Zfc, offers outstanding IQ. Given the low price, Z lens compatibility and gorgeous looks, it's no wonder that the Zfc is generating the same kind of pre-order frenzy last seen when the D800 was first announced.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

I think it is due to marketing hype and lack of experience. If you actually use the same generation 24mp APSC and 24mp FF together, there isn't as big of a difference as people want to believe.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

I think we should stop calling it crop sensors. There's nothing cropped, they just have other dimensions. Using a smaller part of a sensor is cropping, not having a sensor with other dimensions. We have 24x16mm sensors now for at least 17 years (since the D70 and EOS300), people should be used by now to the other focuslengths than we used in the past.

Jul 1, 2021*permalink

Well, when they bundle it with a FF lens, you have to acknowledge the crop no? And to me, why not? It is how we have had to think for many years... as long as APSC and FF lenses fit on APSC bodies, you have to acknowledge the crop. Also, when using all different formats, whether it be APSC medium format, etc... it helps to refer to 35mm FF FOV in order to talk about FOV. 35mm has been king for way too many years to stop thinking about it.

Jul 1, 2021*permalink

Ilia Snopchenko

Reminds a little of the Voigtländer Color-Skopar 28mm f/2.8 SL II, though understandably not quite as compact. But maybe the performance is a bit better than on that lens.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Its a lightweight all plastic lens and it shows in the product shots. Nothing like a voightlander.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

mferencz

These small walk around primes are a nice break. Sony has a bunch for their mount, both their own and third party. I really think Nikon could have put a metal mount on it, rather than trying to segment their line, because that's the only reason it doesn't. Not price. Sigma has their I series that they really built solid and quality and price wise they are reasonable. They feel really good in hand. Perception of quality is so important on something like this.

Jul 1, 2021*permalink

Saves a whole $1 US.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Jay A

Well, the thing is, if Nikon makes a million of these, they save a million dollars.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

Chris59

No, if Nikon makes a million of these they MAKE a million dollars. The savings won't be necessarily passed on to the consumer.

Aug 24, 2021permalink

Jay A

What you're implying is that a plastic mount lens will be sold at the same price as a metal mount lens. However, plastic mount lenses are cheaper for the consumer than metal ones. They are also cheaper for Nikon to make.
So, Nikon doesn't MAKE money by including plastic, they SAVE money by not having to spend more for the metal.

Aug 24, 2021permalink

JP001

Wow, love the looks of the Z fc and this 28mm. Shame the Z fc isn't FF. A FF Z fc with a set of these lightweight primes would be really, really tempting. Two little rants about the 28mm though: ditch the plastic mount and what a missed opportunity to not include an aperture ring or control ring. Cosmetically it looks like it has one. With a fly by wire control ring and the little LCD on top, you could really go old school.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

That what be called value. Another decade or so and we'll have full-frame sensors in a platform no larger than Nikon FM. I guess Sigma did do something like that.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

PortraitLover

anyone thought about buying that E series pancake 50 1.8 and mounting it to this camera?

Jul 1, 2021permalink

io_bg

You would need the FTZ adapter which wouldn't look 'cool'.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

You could ask for a pancake adapter ... 😎

Jul 1, 2021permalink

and it would be 75mm.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Besides not looking 'cool' which it certainly wouldn't, the FTZ is similar in size to this lens and has a protrusion out of the bottom which can be rather annoying if you shoot on a tripod and switch between F and Z mount lenses. It looks really weird with smaller lenses even average AIS primes.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

User7146803616

Shame the Zfc is not full framed, but this little beauty is bang on. Very nice for the price.

Jun 30, 2021*permalink

Raymond L

wow. I must say, that lens looks amazing.... Nikon might be onto something here.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

Newbie question here, is the f/2.8 the FF aperture or the APS-C aperture? (If that makes sense.)

Jun 30, 2021permalink

Adrian Green

It’s the actual aperture. Used on APSC bodies the lens would provide roughly similar depth of field as you’d see on a 42mm F4 on FF.

Jun 30, 2021*permalink

Aperture is aperture, doesn't matter what sensor size sits behind it.

The only difference is in depth of field - the larger sensor will have a shallower DOF. This would be around a 43mm f/4 equivalent. But that DOF difference is a result of the focal length of the lens, not the aperture.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

@Adrian and @Matty, so if I buy a FF 43mm/f2.8, will it be brighter than this aps-c 28mm/f2.8 or the same?

Jul 1, 2021permalink

@mina_88 It would not be any brighter, but it would give you a tighter frame (like more "zoomed in"). It would be like a 62mm lens on FF. Unless you mean if you used a 43/2.8 on a full-frame camera, in which case the answer is still no, though the FF sensor does gather more total light because of its larger area.

A lens is a lens. The difference comes from different sensor sizes. Full frame is 2.25x the size of APS-C, so a little over twice as large. We tend to round down and just call it one stop (one stop would be 2x).

When you put a lens (ANY LENS) on one sensor, then take it off and put it on a camera with a smaller sensor, you will no see as much of the scene because the image is cropped in, essentially. Think of it like a FF sensor sees the entire image cirle of the lens, but the smaller APS-C sensor only sees about half as much in the middle.

So the result from that as far as apertures go is reduced depth of field (the blur in front of and behind the focus point).

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Thanks @MattyMustng for the explanation.
So if I wanted to compare this lens versus the Sony compact prime 40mm F2.5, will the following be accurate.

For this Nikon lens, the aperture diameter is 28/2.8=10mm
But for the Sony, it is 40/2.5= 16mm
Although if I use the equivalent FF focal length for the Nikon in my calculations, I would have gotten: 10mm*1.5=15mm

So the answer is not 15mm, but instead it is 10mm still, and in that case the Sony has a much bigger aperture on FF than the Nikon when used on something like the Z5 or Z6?

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Ignore all that.

The actual size of the aperture doesn't matter. What matters is the f-stop, which is a ratio (as you clearly know). An f/2.8 lets in the same amount of light whether it's a 20mm lens or a 300mm lens. The exposure will be identical, but obviously, the resulting photos will be vastly different in their framing.

If you compare this to the Sony 45, the Sony is 1/3 of a stop faster - a completely negligible difference. It receives 1/3 of a stop more light than the 28/2.8 but a third of a stop is not something to even think about.

The difference between the 28/2.8 on this Nikon Z fc vs. the Sony 45 would depend on whether the 45 was on an APS-C Sony or full-frame Sony. If it was on a FF Sony, the field of view of both would be incredibly close, nearly identical.

If it was mounted on an APS-C Sony, the image from the Sony would be cropped 1.5x - so about 67mm.

Make sense?

Jul 1, 2021permalink

@MattyMustng, I think I got it now, this can be seen as a FF 42/2.8 which is quite close to the Sony FF 40/2.5, no need to apply the crop factor to the aperture. Thanks.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

tm8

It's not very useful to talk about lenses without also talking about what sensor they are being paired with. So you can say F2.8 is F2.8 regardless of the sensor, and that's true. But we're talking about cameras, and in a camera, you always have to look at it as a system. And in a system the image circle of that lens becomes important. Because what do you think happens when you're cropping a full frame image circle? You're not just changing the depth of field... you're unable to collect all of the light that the lens is capturing... And that's why on APS-C that lens is no longer equivalent to F2.8 but rather F4.2... Or put another way, using a full frame lens on a crop sensor camera is wasteful.
DP review has written several articles about this, such as this one: https://www.dpreview.com/learn/2799100497/equivalence-in-a-nutshell

Jul 1, 2021permalink

@tm8 please stop spreading false information. The idea of equivalence is only about depth of field. It is also related to the amount of noise, but none of that changes anything about the lens on your camera. Equivalence is fine to think about, I do it all the time, but people like you act as if apertures need to always be adjusted for equivalence which is nothing more than a complete failure to understand science and physics and how optics and sensors work.

We all know that APS-C sensors are noisier than FF sensors for any given ISO. Boom, you know that, that's all you need to know. Equivalence therefore only matters as far as depth of field - it DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH EXPOSURE. You confuse people with this false nonsense.

Even the article you cite supports exactly what I'm saying: "because the exposure and ISO system is, by design, independent of sensor size, equivalent apertures should only be used to understand camera/lens capability, not exposure."

Jul 1, 2021permalink

@tm8 The entire idea of manipulating your aperture is *entirely* based on exposure. The resultant changes in depth of field are secondary to that - what causes the deeper depth of field on the smaller sensor isn't even the sensor itself, it's the shorter focal length of the lens.

But no matter what, that f/2.8 lens is transmitting the same amount of light as the FF 2.8 lens. The fact that your sensor doesn't gather as much of that light is an entirely separate issue.

But, given how bokeh obsessed most people on the internet are these days, I'm not surprised so many people insist that you absolutely have to adjust for equivalence.

You're dealing with an entire system, yes, but what you posit would only be valid if a given ISO value behaved differently on different sensor sizes. But it doesn't. The same ISO/f-stop/shutter speed settings can be used on any camera and achieve the same exposure.

Jul 1, 2021*permalink

tm8

I'm sorry Matty but you are the one that created confusion with your false information that an FF lens on a cropped sensor body only changes the depth of field. You then try to lecture people on physics when you don't seem to understand it. Ultimately the most important thing for gathering light is the physical aperture of the lens. Your silly quip that F2.8 is F2.8 is irrelevant to people that actually need to capture as much light as they can such as astronomers. On paper a cell phone camera with its typical F1.7 aperture would be better than the Hubble which works at around F24... You see how complicated this gets when you go beyond the exposure triangle? You simply brush fundamental principles aside by saying the sensors will be noisier, as if that's not a big deal, and talk about exposure as if that's the only thing that matters...
No one would ever need a proper camera if that were true... Your cellphone would suffice.

Jul 2, 2021*permalink

@Matty, @tm8, I actually realized now that this is a FF 28mm/F2.8, so the specs are for Full Frame which is all I care about since I plan on buying a Z5 and wanted to know if this compact prime would give comparable performance to the the Sony compact counterpart, and I believe in this case it would, (I made a mistake by saying it would be 42mm on FF, I thought this was APS-C ... specs)

Jul 2, 2021permalink

@tm8 I’ve literally studied this sh*t and half my income comes from writing about it. You are correct about some of what you’re saying, but the problem is

1) there is no standardized language to talk about this stuff. We use terms regularly in photography that really can mean something completely different. “Resolution” is one such word, which people generally use to describe the number of pixels of a sensor (pixel resolution). But that’s completely different and almost irrelevant because what we regular care about is spatial and angular resolution.

You are correct on an absolute scientific level about most of what you say. Most of it.

2) he was clearly asking questions as a beginner. Coming in here with this complex stuff is just not something you should do. If someone is having trouble understanding how an f/2.8 lens works on FF vs APS-C, you don’t start this long complex discussion. You explain the FOV and DOF differences. End of story.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

Phil Flash

So the non-SE version will be a little less $?

Jun 30, 2021permalink

I would say expect the same price to spare your disapointment.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

Ellis Vener

I like.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

m_black

I want

Jun 30, 2021permalink

thisisbenji

I for one am very excited about this lens. It's going to be awesome on the Z6ii or Z7ii. I think I will likely prefer the upcoming 40mm f/2 on the Z50.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

JOrmsby

You design a beautiful, metal body retro APS-c camera, then a cheap-looking all plastic FF retro lens to go with it? What are they thinking?

Jun 30, 2021permalink

Ellis Vener

That it will sell well. And that it would give people on internet bulletin boards something to whine about.

Jun 30, 2021*permalink

Alan53

If you really want to go the full retro route with manual focus lenses, you can either adapt old AIS lenses, or adapt Zeiss Loxia lenses (full frame e mount manual focus lenses).

Jun 30, 2021permalink

JOrmsby

I'm sure they'll *say* it's selling well. Prolly claim delays and backorders due to high demand! All as their reported sales volumes and quarterly revenues continue to tank.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Ellis Vener

@JOrmsby, I don’t know who at Nikon did something mean to you, but maybe one day you’ll get over it.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Based

Nikon should have made a 24mm f/2.8 Pancake APS-C Z lens instead of repurposing a FF one.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

NatuRaOx2

It’s almost a plastic replica of their old 28 mm f/2.8 ais lens . Very good 28mm lens as a matter of fact . It’s super light and great for reducing weight on many fronts . One is for video and on a gimbal . The 28mm focal length has been used forever in Hollywood as a standard lens . They use it on super 35 format sensors. This equates to about the same as the apsc sensor on this camera. So you’re getting approximately 42mm and that has been deemed as the normal view or fov we humans see with our own vision . Or “normal” and not the 50mm fov focal length. Then Nikon has the 40mm coming out which give on a ff camera the approximate same fov . But as it is also the standard carry around lens Nikon came out with in 1959 was a 28mm for their new film slr’s . It’s a super useful focal length and a nostalgic one at that for the company. It’s perfect for the retro style of this camera.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

NatuRa the optical design is nothing like the old lens. Neither is the barrel.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Ilia Snopchenko

I think bundling this lens with the Zfc is a stopgap because Nikon hasn't developed a native DX pancake prime in the vein of Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 in time. Remember the "compact 28mm" was on the roadmaps since forever, but the Zfc is a rather more recent addition.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

+1 for Canon.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

It's like they made the wrong camera to go with the lenses.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

Bender79ita

I was wondering why this lens was so big and only f2.8... it's for FF?
They released a retro aps-c camera with a dedicated retro... full frame lens?
So much love for z-apsc... (and before "it can be used on aps-c" - if it was for aps-c it was f1.8 at that size). Their aps-c really needs a decent f1.8 prime, and 28 could have been a pretty useful one. Of course no VR because FF has IBIS. Way to go.

Jun 30, 2021*permalink

I suspect I'd rather get me a used AF-S 35/1,8 G DX Nikkor plus FZ adapter than use this new lens, even if it would destroy the "looks" of that new camera...

Jun 30, 2021permalink

So they should have made two 28mm compacts? One for FF and one for APS-C?

I might agree that they should have come out with a new Z version of their 35/1.8 DX lens. But at least this way, this release also has something to satisfy FF users. Plus 28mm is a great walkaround lens on APS-C being around 43mm. 40-45mm is my favorite normal, versatile prime.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

G1Houston

For anyone who expects Nikon to make APSC-native lens, just look at what they have done to the dSLR system. They made one 35/1.8 lens which has been wildly popular, but no lens wider than that after this lens. They are doing the same with the Z system. In Nikon's mind, their APSC system is only a transient system that all users should eventually "upgrade" to FF. Even though many will be happy with a single APSC system with compact lens to match.

Jul 1, 2021*permalink

@G1Houston that's true of every manufacturer except Fuji. Sony has a paltry selection of APS-C lenses, though it got better once they added that 16-55/2.8 and 70-350. But most of their APS-C lenses are crap (that 16-50 power zoom, the horrible 16mm, the 20mm, etc.).

Same was true with Canon's DSLR system too.

It's just how it has always been with all these companies.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Matty: errmh Pentax?

https://d3ci1qmv2b9ffj.cloudfront.net/_processed_/3/f/csm_05-lineup-img-01__2__94d9e95a0d.jpg
^da lens lineup

Jul 1, 2021*permalink

Bender79ita

@MattyMustng , they could have used this opportunity to show some love to the aps-c line with a 28mm f1.8 VR. Right now this body only has 2 kit lenses and that's it, which is not attractive at all for customers that are not invested in Nikon Z full frame.
Of course Walmart and Bestbuy customers won't care or notice...

Jul 1, 2021permalink

@Lessiter believe me, I'm well aware of the Pentax 43mm - I love that lens. I love that Pentax made that exact focal length. But Pentax DOES cater to APS-C users because their entire digital line is APS-C except for two models, the K1 and K1 II. So I didn't mention them in my comment, just Canon and Nikon. I guess I forgot to put them at the beginning along with Fuji, so that's true. I was more talking about mirrorless systems in my head.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Yes. That 35mm f/1.8 is anomaly for DX: good and affordable.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

@Bender78... why does it matter? If it works on APSC, it works on APSC.

Jul 1, 2021*permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Are you saying what makes this lens a special edition is that it is a variant on a lens that hasn't been produced yet? Is it possible to introduce v.2 when v.1 has yet to appear?

Jun 30, 2021permalink

Yes, which is fine as this lens might - as far as I understand - only be sold with the ZFC in a bundle while the regular to-be-released variant is going to be a shelf item with a more contemporary looking shell.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

Kristi Guin

You can preorder this as a standalone.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

JOrmsby

Cheap Plastic mount, no thanks.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

JustSomeone

I feel sorry for you man!

Jun 30, 2021permalink

Rick620

Thanks for letting us know

Jun 30, 2021permalink

Yuck, never plastic lens mount - broke a 18-105 all plastic lens - the lens came as bundle with my new D90 - I got rid of it and bought a 16-85 DX instead.

Jun 30, 2021*permalink

Mai, good luck cracking the mount of a pancake(ish) lens. There's no lever effect forces to really play at with this stubby a lens. Given the stress a metal mount on your 18-105 would probably have warped - or damaged the camera body bayonet if the lens mount was metal.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

It was a cheap and nasty lens - the 16-85 VR is solidly made and metal mount. Used it with my D300s and gave it to my daughter D7000 when I switched to FX.
Even my AIS 28 f2.8 E lens has metal mount, and this Z lens looks like my E lens - the only missing bits are aperture ring and distance scale,

Jun 30, 2021*permalink

Dan_168

I am no fan of plastic mount, bit for the price, it's almost a disposable lens, especially when purchased as a bundle with the body, if the optic is good, I am in. I still have the old AIS 28 2.8 but i bet this lens will have even better optic,

Jun 30, 2021permalink

mxx

For amateur use the plastic mount will probably last the lifetime of the photographer.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

JustSomeone

@JOrmsby
Let me add a thought, from someone that deals with lots of camera service.
if your lens has a metal mount and is hit somehow, it will most certainly cause damage to your camera.
If said lens has a plastic mount, it will just shear off and hardly cause any damage.
I have dealt with countless similar cases where I got a broken lens (plastic mount) and got the camera too for checking and make sure all was good, 9 out of 10 times all is good with the camera. Not so much when the lens has a metal mount.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

AKH

Great looking lens.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

rangel28

The design to me looks like the old Series E lenses from the 80s. Those lenses were inexpensive and lightweight but for the most part produced great results.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

m_black

I sold my 28 2.8 Series E last year. Anticipating the 28 pancake this year. Loved that lens. This Z 28 seems to pay homage to that 28 Series E lens for sure. It will join my collection soon as possible!

Jun 30, 2021permalink

LukeDuciel

I like 28mm and I use Nikon DSLR for years. This lens entices me to buy a 2nd-hand Z6 and make a very light full-frame combo.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

TWChua

Used to own AF-D 28mm f2.8 and quite disappointed by its sharpness. Based on the sample photos of SE lens, the sharpness is much improved.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

Luke Kaven

Interesting lens. With a full-frame image circle, I'm expecting this to be a very sharp lens for APS-C, even in the corners. Very little size/weight penalty for a considerable gain.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

EXkurogane

I'm not old enough to be familiar with older AIS lenses, but this still reminds me of nikon's AFD 20, 24, 28/2.8

Actually, not a bad idea for nikon to reiterate those lenses again in Z mount and position them as non-S lenses, more affordable options to the f1.8S counterparts at the $300 range.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

BasilG

I hope they'll make slightly wider ones along the same lines as well (size and weight, not style).

Jun 30, 2021permalink

vivaldibow

Well matched with Zfc in appearance. I would be thinking if I was using the FE2 plus AIs 28mm f2.8. :)

Jun 30, 2021permalink

David Barbour

Make it happen Nikon.....48 years I used Nikon>all the way to the 850 ...went to Sony A7R 111 for smaller lenses ...the 28mm is a popular lens, you know that...why so long in designing a small 28mm ....if it is sharp and I mean sharp...I will sell my Sony cameras and buy Nikon mirrorless...a 28mm is ideal for street and landscape...we all have been waiting for a great, sharp 28....

Jun 29, 2021permalink

tkbslc

Would love for Canon to make one of these for RF to pair with the 50mm f1.8.

Jun 29, 2021permalink

Impulses

I like the price and FL, I figure that alone will make it pretty popular, 28mm doesn't get enough love these days... I wish this were an option on E mount instead of the old 28/2, or the various 24s, alas I ponied up for the 24/2.8 G because I wanted a tiny wide... I'm happy with it, still would've preferred a tiny 28 tho (since I also have larger 20 & 35mm options, as does Nikon).

Jun 29, 2021permalink

Eric Hensel

" I wish this were an option on E mount instead of the old 28/2,"
It's an eminently usable lens, in my world. What didn't you like?

Jun 29, 2021*permalink

Impulses

Doesn't hold up as well on higher MP bodies compared to the more recent 24mm options, even stopped down to f2.8, and like a lot of Sony's older lenses it's not sealed as well either... I'm not calling it trash or anything mind you, my sister owns one, I've seen plenty of nice shots with it from her and others but as one or their very oldest designs I think Sony could easily improve on it.

They've got no incentive to do so if it still sells decently tho, and third parties don't seem too interested in 28mm which is unfortunate.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

Eric Hensel

"Doesn't hold up as well on higher MP bodies" I confess I haven't used it since I upgraded from an A7 to an A7RIII several months ago, so I'll remedy that. It was never razor-sharp at f2 anyway, which I just considered "classic" ;-)
"They've got no incentive to do so if it still sells decently tho, and third parties don't seem too interested in 28mm which is unfortunate."
That is unfortunate -I have always enjoyed this FL, and was hoping to upgrade it , at some point. There is the Sigma f1.4 -which looks excellent, and huge.

Jun 30, 2021*permalink

Impulses

Yeah the Sigma is a DSLR design with an elongated tube to make it fit for L/E mount, it'll be interesting to see if they make a native DN version tho since AFAIK the 28mm was one of their better Art lenses for DSLRs. They've still got a bunch of stuff to tackle on mirrorless that'll probably be more of a priority.

Viltrox's is coming out with a 28/1.8 and that's the only other native one with AF that I'm aware of, I was kinda underwhelmed with reviews of their 24/1.8 tho... It's the size of the 20/1.8 G, I wasn't expecting it to match that but the small Samyang 24/1.8 looks better by comparison. It's not a Sony thing either, 28mm seem to be scarce everywhere, except for Fuji X I guess.

Jun 30, 2021*permalink

Eric Hensel

It's kinda old-school, I suppose. in the 60s/70s 28mm was the go-to wide for many of us. 135, 85, 50, 28. I've never had a 24, and I just picked up a 20mm Tamron I'm struggling a bit with, composition wise.

Jul 1, 2021permalink

Photodog2

I've been shooting Ai and Ais lenses adapted on my Z6/7. So this should look better, be shorter without an adapter, lighter, have AF and benefit from everything Nikon has learned about optics since the 80s.. The price is reasonable too. What's not to like? I'm guessing manual focusing by wire won't be so great but hey, that's what the old lenses are for.

Jun 29, 2021permalink

Plastic lens mount - it may shred microscopic plastic dust onto your exposed sensor. What is wrong with stainless steel lens mount - how much is the saving $5 ?

Jun 30, 2021permalink

Mai, "[the plastic lens mount] may shred microscopic plastic dust onto your exposed sensor.[...]"

What a hysterical stretch. Try to keep your criticism grounded in reality, please.

Jun 30, 2021permalink

When was the last time you look at your lens mount and see how much dust and grime accumulated there - and that is on a stainless steel mount

Jul 1, 2021permalink

They likely did it for weight savings rather than cost savings. I'd personally prefer the steel mount with gasket for an extra $100, but you can't always get what you want.

Jul 2, 2021permalink

SafariBob

Love it

Jun 29, 2021permalink

Roqueiroz

Great Nikon.

Jun 29, 2021permalink

KrisAK

Curious to see a comparison with the Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 F-mount lens (#1420), which is apparently still in production. I've never used it, but it gets stellar reviews.

Jun 29, 2021*permalink

nonolet

wow - i don't consider $ 299 particularly cheap for a plastic fantastic, slow 28/2.8 prime. 199 would be more like the number I'd see for such a simple lens.

Jun 29, 2021permalink

ANAYV

It's actually the fastest Z DX lens right now.

Z lenses are sharper than AS-F lenses. Maybe that's why?
It should have the gasket though.
I'm OK with plastic mount, as ever since a dog charged at me, and I dropped my D300s with 55-200mm lens...I am so glad the mount was plastic!

$12.95 and 20 minutes latter, the lens was able to be used again.

If it was a metal mount, I suppose the damage would of been to the camera, and not the lens...or both
A
nyway as a 42mm AOV, I'm not at all interested in buying this. Never would use it.

Jun 29, 2021permalink

holashobby

Though bundled with the zfc, it is a not a Z DX lens, but an FX one, the slowest Z prime, but also the lightest as one should expect. There is an opportunity for Viltrox's f1.4 primes here.

Jun 29, 2021*permalink

Photodog2

I have a 35/1.2 Z DX lens made by 7Artisans that I shoot in crop mode. It is manual focus. TBH, F1.2 is only for that dreamy look, it gets sharp at f1.4. Bought it for $89 used but the build quality is that of a much more expensive lens.

Jun 29, 2021*permalink

It's cheap for a contemporary OEM lens. Do note the initial listing price also tends to be a bit tall, and diminish to more attractive levels down the line. By next year I imagine we'd be able to start finding the lens (or at least its standard variant) for around 250$.

Jun 30, 2021permalink