My Copy of Nikon Z 17-28 2.8 vs My Copy of Nikon F 18-35 3.5G

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
CBax79
CBax79 New Member • Posts: 13
My Copy of Nikon Z 17-28 2.8 vs My Copy of Nikon F 18-35 3.5G
2

Hello everyone and thanks for reading. I hope this doesn't seem too long and drawn out for comparing a couple of more "basic" lenses like these.

Let me preface this thread by saying I'm not here to trash a lens or sway someone to or from buying any lens. I'm trying to determine if my copy of the Z 17-28 2.8 is faulty or if there is an exploit in the characteristic of the design that undermines it's usefulness to me. I will say that I have never had a lens that was not either correctable by my own means or had such a distracting variance in performance across the entire frame as this lens. Being a Tamron rebrand I have also come to understand that in the E-mount version of this G1 design there has been QC issues relating to IQ variances.

The Nikon 18-35G is one of my favorite lenses of all time and I used it constantly on my D850. After reading reviews, watching video reviews, and having the mindset of wanting a good standard-range lens upgrade path from the 18-35G, I naturally looked into and ended up purchasing the Z 17-28 2.8 after obtaining my Z8.

The Z 17-28 2.8 is a fantastic lens, with impressive sharpness/colors/micro in the center and midframe that, when peeping, just edges out my 18-35G. However, what I have noticed from shooting landscape in portrait orientation is that my old 18-35G absolutely smokes my copy of the Z 17-28 2.8 in foreground sharpness at every aperture from 3.5 on. In that regard I feel like it's almost pointless to have that extra width if it looks like it does here. I will also note that performance is the same as this whether the camera is tilted 90 degrees clockwise or counter-clockwise.

I really started to notice when I was taking pictures in the woods this fall that, while everything in the center and mids looked fantastic, a lot of plants and such in the foreground just weren't looking crisp compared to older shots with the 18-35. I don't have exact locations to compare the differences, so to illustrate the issue I did the low-budget non-scientific test in my back yard.

Settings are:

Tripod Mount

IBIS/VR off

Manual Mode - Exposure set to '0' for every shot after Aperture adjustment

Matrix Metering

Pinpoint Focus for all pictures situated on the knot in the center of the tree trunk/center of the frame (1st and 3rd shot zoomed out to show entire picture)

5 Second Shutter Countdown

Imported straight into LR with Camera Standard Profile

Lens Profile for respective lenses

No Editing/Saved as screenshots on computer

Random Corgi Loaf walking around

F3.5 Full Shot

F3.5 Zoomed

F4.5 Full Shot

F4.5 Zoomed

F5.6 Zoomed

F8 vs F9 Zoomed - Advantage Z 17-28 but still falls short

F11 Zoomed

Since I'm not too versed in having faulty lenses and this feels more like a hunch, someone else may pick up on this much quicker than me and know whether or not it's a bad copy. Again, thanks everyone!

Nikon D850 Nikon Z8
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow