Just come across this review of Nikon Z 28 2.8 SE...

[peripheralfocus]

For many reasons, it's important to look at a range of several different reviews of a lens, from different sources, and try to reconcile and/or aggregate the results.

That means nobody should be too worried about a single lackluster review and, conversely, nobody should get too excited about a single rave review. No single review is definitive.

If I'm interested in buying a lens -- and I have a modest interest in this one -- I prefer to have half a dozen reviews to consider before I start forming any tentative opinions. That's not always possible, but I certainly won't form any opinion based on only one test.

More tests helps to even out the potential effects of sample variation and tester error, although, obviously, it doesn't eliminate them.

 

[Jeff_0000]

For many reasons, it's important to look at a range of several different reviews of a lens, from different sources, and try to reconcile and/or aggregate the results.

That means nobody should be too worried about a single lackluster review and, conversely, nobody should get too excited about a single rave review. No single review is definitive.

If I'm interested in buying a lens -- and I have a modest interest in this one -- I prefer to have half a dozen reviews to consider before I start forming any tentative opinions. That's not always possible, but I certainly won't form any opinion based on only one test.

More tests helps to even out the potential effects of sample variation and tester error, although, obviously, it doesn't eliminate them.

Agree. I don't see many reviews of this lens though.

 

[PerL]

For many reasons, it's important to look at a range of several different reviews of a lens, from different sources, and try to reconcile and/or aggregate the results.

That means nobody should be too worried about a single lackluster review and, conversely, nobody should get too excited about a single rave review. No single review is definitive.

If I'm interested in buying a lens -- and I have a modest interest in this one -- I prefer to have half a dozen reviews to consider before I start forming any tentative opinions. That's not always possible, but I certainly won't form any opinion based on only one test.

More tests helps to even out the potential effects of sample variation and tester error, although, obviously, it doesn't eliminate them.

Agree. I don't see many reviews of this lens though.

Matt Irwin said a few weeks ago in his YouTube-channel that he would test the new Viltrox 24 1.8 against the Nikon 28 2.8.

Here is a first look from Ricci.

 

[peripheralfocus]

Agree. I don't see many reviews of this lens though.

Yes, the lack of enough reviews can certainly be an obstacle. I've had that problem several times in the past when I was looking to buy a lens that wasn't high on reviewer's priority lists.

 

[MyReality]

Forget about the language and ratings, they are subjective. Look at the test photos and MTF charts and make your own decision.

The 24mm and 35mm are clearly better. Price opinion is also subjective based on affordability,

 

[jjz2]

for those who are interested

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-28mm-f2-8-review/

Thanks for this. There is also the ephotozine review:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikkor-z-28mm-f-2-8-se-lens-review-35650/performance

The latter seem to like it a bit more.

Also the MTF from Nikon looks quite good to me - for this class of lens.

Yes, the Camera Labs review was OK, but this from ephotozine was glowing.

"All around, it's hard to think how the lens could be better at any price level, and where it does stand makes it a no-brainer 'Editor's Choice'."

That makes the ephotozine review suspect.

Hard to know which to believe...

There are naturally quite a bit of sample variation of lenses at this price class.

Looking at the cameralab review, it seems to match Nikon's MTFs at f/2.8 quite well.

The images at different apertures also look quite realistic.

The ephotozine MTF values are only from the center of the frame and the "edge", apparently at the edge iin the middle of the longer side of the frame. Based on Nikon's MTFs the lens is still OK at this distance from the center (about 12 mm) after which the 30 l/mm values fall off. Those values are however not measured by ephotozine. No corner values.

Ephotozine's sample images are mostly shot at f/8-11. The few shots at f/2.8-4 do not have any small edge/corner detail. It seems they purposefully stayed at narrow apertures.

All in all, I would say the cameralab review appears more objective.

It looks that way although ephotozine are usually reliable IMO but I do take your point about the limited testing they have done

I suppose that there will be more reviews coming up.

I have to say that the principle of a 28/2.8 "pancake" lens does not thrill me - I have a handful of "good" 28/2.8's all MF admittedly and not pancakes since they sit on an FTZ.

Apart from the 1.4's, Nikon seem not to regard 28 as a popular lens - its not on the roadmap for the 1.8 primes.

They also seem to alternate in quality:

28/2.8 ai - not so hot

28/2.8 ai-s CRC - very good and certainly for close up and I have not seen the reported weakness at infinity

28/2.8 AF-D - reportedly similar optics to the relatively weak ai

28/1.8 G - mixed views

28/2.8 Z ???

I want a brightish ( 1.8 ) 24 or 28 - still mulling over the 24s or a 28G - or something completely different.

Depending on how bad you want 28, you might consider the Fuji xf 18 1.4 and a user body. It has rave reviews.