Nikon Z 24-70 F4 vs Nikon Z 28-75 F2.8 which is sharper?

[Ortziomenaka]

Someone who has compared the quality of both lenses? As for sharpness in the center and edges to different focal points and diaphragms?

 

[tdwesbo]

For what purpose? At what distances? Are you shooting the Milky Way or a wedding?

 

[Ortziomenaka]

For what purpose? At what distances? Are you shooting the Milky Way or a wedding?

I'm asked about the sharpness of the lens, whether for weddings or for photographing my feet is the least of it.

 

[PLShutterbug]

Someone who has compared the quality of both lenses? As for sharpness in the center and edges to different focal points and diaphragms?

The 28-75 has only been shipping a short while so there may be few points of comparison. However others say it is a rebrand of an older Tamron design, so my hunch is it is not that great (if it is, why did Tamron release a new version?).

My Nikkor 24-70 f/4 S is amazingly sharp. I have been very pleased with it.

The S line are the pinnacle of Nikon lens design. Tamron? Old design?

 

[beatboxa]

For what purpose? At what distances? Are you shooting the Milky Way or a wedding?

I'm asked about the sharpness of the lens, whether for weddings or for photographing my feet is the least of it.

What you should understand is that those variables someone else mentioned can make a big difference to sharpness.

But if you want to ignore those and want the simple answer to your question without distance, the answer is in the MTF charts for each of the lenses (because that is the purpose of an MTF chart):

• https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_28-75mmf28/spec.htm
• https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_24-70mmf4s/spec.htm

So now, you have sharpness in the center and edges at different frequencies at a given distance.

 

[michaeladawson]

For what purpose? At what distances? Are you shooting the Milky Way or a wedding?

I'm asked about the sharpness of the lens, whether for weddings or for photographing my feet is the least of it.

A lens that is sharp at 10 feet may not be as sharp at infinity. Or vice versa. Learn this before criticizing relevant responses.

 

[skyrunr]

You probably can't go wrong with either lens. I would hold off until some proper reviews and comparisons are made available. However...

The 24-70F4S is an S lens with several other qualities:

• That 4mm wide is way more benefit than the 5mm long
• stronger on the long end and in the corners
• less fall off and better corner sharpness
• hardly any focus breathing, and less ghosting/flare
• half the MSRP used open-box ($425 US)
  • There are going to be even more as people upgrade to the 24-120.
• one of my best AF Z lenses

The 28-75f2.8 lens means you'll probably want a wider zoom or prime. The only other two advantages would be the f2.8 when you absolutely need it, and slightly better bokeh near center at 24mm. Unconfirmed, but at least according to MTF charts here:

Loading…

imaging.nikon.com

I'd buy a 14-30F4S and start saving up for the 24-70f2.8S.

 

[Jeff_0000]

Nikon Z 2875 uses the same optical formula found on Tamron 2875 G1 E-mount lens.

You may check Christopher Frost's reviews of both lenses on YouTube and compare the results yourself. You can also have a look at cameralabs website as they have also tested both lenses.

My memory is that the Z 2470 f4 has sharper corners at f4 than Tamron 2875 G1 at 2.8

 

[calson]

Sharpness should not be the concern but whether one needs f/2.8 or wants the much wider view angle of a 24mm focal lenth.

 

[Ortziomenaka]

Nikon Z 2875 uses the same optical formula found on Tamron 2875 G1 E-mount lens.

You may check Christopher Frost's reviews of both lenses on YouTube and compare the results yourself. You can also have a look at cameralabs website as they have also tested both lenses.

My memory is that the Z 2470 f4 has sharper corners at f4 than Tamron 2875 G1 at 2.8

Thanks for your answer

 

[Stavrosf]

I am not interested on this lens, but definitely it seems strange that online reviewers (Ricci for instance) are very silent regarding this lens. Maybe Matt will have soon more news as it seems that he has the lens.

If I had to guess, I believe 24-70mm F4 would be more sharper especially in the corners (S lens vs non lens), but of course 28-75mm is eligible for F2.8.

 

[chambeshi]

They are likely sharp enough in practice for many applications. The additional speed of f2.8 vs f4 is one factor, so is focus breathing and 24mm vs 28mm

Bit too early to judge

https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/which-mid-range-zoom-for.html

 

[AndreLar]

Since the 24-70 F4 is marked as an S lens and not the 28-75 I'd expect better optical performance on the first (one except for the one stop sower speed)

 

[rick in vegas]

I have it. It is sharper than 24-79 f/4. Not a lot but you can see it. 50mm 1.8 still beats it.

 

[rick in vegas]

I tested against my 24-70 f4 and the Tamikon is slightly sharper. Not much to really matter. Bokeh not much different. In lower light the 2.8 does help on f stop . Build quality a little cheap. I would not recommend it for $1199 it should be $999 or 1049. I have the 24-120 and it’s build quality is a lot better and it is $1049. I think I will return the Tamikon. Test was done at 24 and 70

 

[mattviki]

My 2 cents:

I received the Z 28-75 F2.8, tested it and sent it back the same day. It's just not sharp at 2.8. It has problems in the center at distances over 2m and in the corners at any distances. Stopped down to F4 it becomes a lot better. But I see no point in having a 2.8 lens that is mediocre at best. IMO the Z 24-70 F4 is a better lens, sharper, faster, lighter. The Z 24-200 is sharper. Z 28-75 could maybe be compared to the Z 28mm F2.8 or Z 40mm F2, but I did not had the oportunity to test those, so I can't tell. That said, is not an absolutely bad lens, more like a Nikon F-mount zoom type lens (IQ wise). The build quality seems ok, the weight also (maybe just a little front heavy), the AF speed also. The price is to high (1049€) and should be priced more like the Tamron 28-75 G1 (649€, Sony FE mount).

 

[rick in vegas]

Well you can except to be wrong. The Tamikon is slightly sharper.

 

[rick in vegas]

Not the result I got. Mine was sharper than the 24-70 and 24-200. Also mine was sharp at 2.8 and didn't improve at f/4. SO either I have a great copy or you had a bad copy. the 2.8 also dropped ISO of course.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

Someone who has compared the quality of both lenses? As for sharpness in the center and edges to different focal points and diaphragms?

Without looking at MTFs, I believe the 24-70 f/4 will be sharper, given it's an S-lens too, and the 28-75 is not despite being faster.

To put the 24-70 f/4 into perspective, it only trails the 24-70 2.8 S by a bit, but is otherwise considered to be very good compared to the 2.8 S. ON lower res bodies, the differences are less noticeable, and probably upon close inspection and in the corners. This was tested by Jim Kasson a while back and was basically his conclusion, so if it's only marginally "worse" than the 2.8 S, I can expect that it has to be better than the 28-75.

Plus, you have to figure to hit the price point of the 28-75 NIkon had to compromise, and the only thing they really could compromise on for lens speed is the optics. They can only make the lens barrel so cheap so compromises have to come from elsewhere (seeing the lens still has a metal mount).

If you're doing weddings and portraits, the 24-70 f/4 is still suitable I would think (I don't shoot those things) along with an 85 and perhaps a 70-200, and some other faster glass. A lot of people have the f/4 version and are very happy with it. And considering what Jim found out, unless you need the extra stop or are doing landscapes on a high-res camera and you value the extra detail in mid-frame and in the corners, the 24-70 f/4 is still very good.

I'd probably put the 24-70 f/4 on a similar level as the 24-120 f/4, still better than the 28-75 I would think, but not quite up to the caliber of the 24-70 .8 S.

--
(NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread.)

 

[mattviki]

At shorter distances from the target (1m, 2m) my specimen was sharp enough and there was minimal change in sharpness between F2.8 and F4. Sharpness was comparable to the center portion of Z 24-70 F4. But at distances longer than 2m I found the difference in sharpness evident and there was a noticable difference between F2.8 and F4 on the 28-75.

There are two sample crops of the target at 5m distance from the 28-75 taken @2.8 & @4:


@F2.8


@F4

It could be sample variation. I'm just not wasting more of my time and money to find out.