Will Nikon ever make a real 28mm for Z?

[MrHollywood]

The answer is.....

Yes.

Robert

 

[LastLapPass]

Nikon used to have great a well-loved 28mm lenses for F mount (in the 1.4 and 1.8), I’m really surprised they haven’t released one for Z mount yet. I know they have the cheap slower 2.8, but I really wish they do an S line faster version.
I believe there was no mention of one on the roadmap before they stopped doing that, but really hope they’re working on it. Any rumors of one?

I loved my Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G and walked around Prague, Budapest, Slovakia & Vienna with it . I still have this lens and tried using it with the FTZ adapter, but I would MUCH rather have a native Z mount version with better focus accuracy and without the added bulk of the FTZII.

Um, look at the size of the other 1.8 S-line lenses. The 28 S will be the same size as the F 1.8 + FTZII. I have been using the combo and there are no focus issues. Focus is much better that my old D750.

Here is the 28 F + FTZ vs 24 S, 20 S, 35 S...


Credit: camerasize.com

JJ

--
Just a Dad documenting life...

 

[shuncheung]

"Ever" is a strong word, and I wonder what a "real 28mm" is, but since ever essentially means an indefinite period, I would imagine Nikon will introduce a 28mm lens that is S-class some day, perhaps in another year or two, or perhaps in 5 to 10 years.

24mm is my preferred focal length over 28mm, but I don't even own a 24mm Z lens. I have several zooms that cover 24 and 28mm, including both 24-70mm zooms, the 24-120mm/f4 S and the 14-30mm/f4 S. I also have the 26mm/f2.8 for more casual usage; it is more than good enough and I love the compactness.

 

[TheSoaringSprite]

Nikon used to have great a well-loved 28mm lenses for F mount (in the 1.4 and 1.8), I’m really surprised they haven’t released one for Z mount yet. I know they have the cheap slower 2.8, but I really wish they do an S line faster version.
I believe there was no mention of one on the roadmap before they stopped doing that, but really hope they’re working on it. Any rumors of one?

I loved my Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G and walked around Prague, Budapest, Slovakia & Vienna with it . I still have this lens and tried using it with the FTZ adapter, but I would MUCH rather have a native Z mount version with better focus accuracy and without the added bulk of the FTZII.

Um, look at the size of the other 1.8 S-line lenses. The 28 S will be the same size as the F 1.8 + FTZII. I have been using the combo and there are no focus issues. Focus is much better that my old D750.

Here is the 28 F + FTZ vs 24 S, 20 S, 35 S...


Credit: camerasize.com

JJ

It's not just about the size and weight for me, it's about having it in native mount for improved AF speed and accuracy. In general, Z mount lenses are also sharper across the frame.

--

Dream Source Studio | Photography by J.P.

Welcome to Dream Source Studio, home to sports, wildlife, event, travel & landscape photography. Need help improving your own skills as an aspiring photographer? Check out the new photography tips section or feel free to e-mail me with your questions!

www.dreamsourcestudio.com

@TheSoaringSprite

 

[LastLapPass]

Nikon used to have great a well-loved 28mm lenses for F mount (in the 1.4 and 1.8), I’m really surprised they haven’t released one for Z mount yet. I know they have the cheap slower 2.8, but I really wish they do an S line faster version.
I believe there was no mention of one on the roadmap before they stopped doing that, but really hope they’re working on it. Any rumors of one?

I loved my Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G and walked around Prague, Budapest, Slovakia & Vienna with it . I still have this lens and tried using it with the FTZ adapter, but I would MUCH rather have a native Z mount version with better focus accuracy and without the added bulk of the FTZII.

Um, look at the size of the other 1.8 S-line lenses. The 28 S will be the same size as the F 1.8 + FTZII. I have been using the combo and there are no focus issues. Focus is much better that my old D750.

Here is the 28 F + FTZ vs 24 S, 20 S, 35 S...


Credit: camerasize.com

JJ

It's not just about the size and weight for me, it's about having it in native mount for improved AF speed and accuracy. In general, Z mount lenses are also sharper across the frame.

I will take the $175 F-mount and a little less in the corners, nobody that views my pictures pixel peeps even in our club contests. Composition or emotion wins, not corner sharpness.

It focuses very fast on the FTZII. It is a wide angle, almost always in focus anyway. No accuracy issue. it is always dead on since it is now using on sensor focus.

One downside is it not a video lens, the focus motor is loud. The S-lines are so quiet I think there is something wrong with the 28 if I have not used it a while, LOL!

JJ

--
Just a Dad documenting life...

 

[TheSoaringSprite]

It's not just about the size and weight for me, it's about having it in native mount for improved AF speed and accuracy. In general, Z mount lenses are also sharper across the frame.

I will take the $175 F-mount and a little less in the corners, nobody that views my pictures pixel peeps even in our club contests. Composition or emotion wins, not corner sharpness.

It focuses very fast on the FTZII. It is a wide angle, almost always in focus anyway. No accuracy issue. it is always dead on since it is now using on sensor focus.

One downside is it not a video lens, the focus motor is loud. The S-lines are so quiet I think there is something wrong with the 28 if I have not used it a while, LOL!

JJ

I guess I'm just too spoiled by the Z glass. :-D After buying the 50mm f/1.8 S, I just couldn't get myself to put up with the adapted primes.

I didn't find the 28mm f/1.8 G very spot-on in low light compared to my Z primes in the same situations. I think that's what ended up turning me off to using it altogether. It performed beautifully on the 24 megapixel D750 and D610, but I think maybe the Z8's 45 megapixels expose some of its weaknesses IMO.

 

[anotherMike]

I too am surprised Nikon didn't come out with a 28/1.8S; they've historically liked the 28mm focal length; it was the focal length chosen when they decided to do a noct-like wide - the famous 28/1.4 D with the ground aspherical element that was amazing in it's day, and it's the only focal length of the F mount era lenses to be updated up to modern high performance quality in the 28/1.4E. So I would have thought for sure, a 28/1.8S or even a 28/1.2S by now.

As for the 28/1.8G; I've owned all the F mount "G" primes, and while none of them were dogs in any sense, the 28/1.8G was the weakest of the lot - a bit too much wavy field curvature and astigmatism just didn't work well for landscape shooters like me with very high standards. The 28/1.4E was much better, and even it isn't as flat field as I would prefer, but rendering wise, until the (amazing) 35/1.2S came along, it may have been the best rendering of all Nikon wides for people/event/non-landscape work. Konica-Minolta knocked that design out of the park for Nikon for sure.

i don't really "get" the 28mm length, so it's not something I really care about, but a whole lot of people like this focal length, so perhaps someday when Nikon decides to be a lens company again, we'll see one. IDK.

 

[LastLapPass]

It's not just about the size and weight for me, it's about having it in native mount for improved AF speed and accuracy. In general, Z mount lenses are also sharper across the frame.

I will take the $175 F-mount and a little less in the corners, nobody that views my pictures pixel peeps even in our club contests. Composition or emotion wins, not corner sharpness.

It focuses very fast on the FTZII. It is a wide angle, almost always in focus anyway. No accuracy issue. it is always dead on since it is now using on sensor focus.

One downside is it not a video lens, the focus motor is loud. The S-lines are so quiet I think there is something wrong with the 28 if I have not used it a while, LOL!

JJ

I guess I'm just too spoiled by the Z glass. :-D After buying the 50mm f/1.8 S, I just couldn't get myself to put up with the adapted primes.

I didn't find the 28mm f/1.8 G very spot-on in low light compared to my Z primes in the same situations. I think that's what ended up turning me off to using it altogether. It performed beautifully on the 24 megapixel D750 and D610, but I think maybe the Z8's 45 megapixels expose some of its weaknesses IMO.

I tested it on my Z7II and am more than happy for my use cases. My best pictures capture emotion or great compositions. Not worried about pixel peeping or doing this...


Credit: Mark Denney

Take care!

JJ

--
Just a Dad documenting life...

 

[musicshootr]

Why do you guys want wide angles faster than f2.8? Is it for shooting in the dark? Or because you want more scope for blur/bokeh? I'm guessing it's the latter, because f2.8 isn't bad at all for lowlight if one has IBIS and likes depth of field?

I'm never going to get over the current penchant for bigger, heavier, faster lenses to get blur. When I took art school photography courses I literally never heard people chitchat blur or bokeh or super-fast lenses for that purpose. I didn't hear blur discussed at all except for an assignment in Photo 101 to introduce the idea. Of course, I wasn't taking portrait classes or pursuing portraiture, it would be talked about there just as a skill in that niche. But when students yakked up socializing about photography nobody was talking about blur or bokeh.

These days? It sometimes seems like that's all that gets talked about when it comes to lens gossip and lens wishlists.

UsherFellig wrote:

Why do you guys want wide angles faster than f2.8? Is it for shooting in the dark? Or because you want more scope for blur/bokeh? I'm guessing it's the latter, because f2.8 isn't bad at all for lowlight if one has IBIS and likes depth of field?

I'm never going to get over the current penchant for bigger, heavier, faster lenses to get blur. When I took art school photography courses I literally never heard people chitchat blur or bokeh or super-fast lenses for that purpose. I didn't hear blur discussed at all except for an assignment in Photo 101 to introduce the idea. Of course, I wasn't taking portrait classes or pursuing portraiture, it would be talked about there just as a skill in that niche. But when students yakked up socializing about photography nobody was talking about blur or bokeh.

These days? It sometimes seems like that's all that gets talked about when it comes to lens gossip and lens wishlists.

The difference is phones. People can take semi decent photographs with phones, so photographers with real lenses want a lens that can do the one thing a phone can't, real background blur.

Where people see flat infinity focused cell phone photos all day, a way to wow clients that seemingly works every time is to have good control over what in the background becomes part of the image and what is washed into blur. And I think new entrants into a camera system are most prone to this "more bokeh = better" mindset, so lens reviewers and marketers play that up because newbies who aren't adapting their old lenses are most likely to be wowed by the bokeh and buy the lens. The "it's better than my phone" effect drives a lot of camera gear purchases I think.

I would argue the same "it's better than my phone" effect drives the sale of X100Vs and RX100s. The former offers more controls and bokeh, and the latter has a lot more reach to photograph concerts and travel.

 

[vegetaleb]

What Nikon needs to do now that they released all the ''pro'' lenses, is to release muffin lenses that will give S line IQ but in (much) more compact and lighter forms.

Imagine 24 f2, 28 f2 , 20 f2...

 

[musicshootr]

I wish they would make an S 40mm lens and keep the rubberized barrel from the 40mm SE. The color rendering is not consistent moving from the 24-120 or 50 1.8 to the 40mm, but the rubber handling makes the 40 feel better (to me) in the hand than the 50 1.8. I have shot the same scene on all 3 lenses to test the colors; the 24-120 f4S and 50 1.8S render the same, but the 40 f2 is decidedly different. (Greener in the white balance, more magenta and off in the skin tones, just generally odd compared to the very neutral and pleasing rendering of the S lenses). I don't think it's just my copy, because I see the "look" of this lens in others' images with it and I wish there was an S line alternative to that look at the same focal length.

I would really love to have a more robust, metal mount 40mm (maybe a 1.8) S lens that would slot in better with my S lenses without requiring that a third of my images be edited to match the others. If they added a rubberized barrel, a functioning aperture ring and/or an AF/MF switch, that would really be icing on the cake.

 

[TheSoaringSprite]

I guess I'm just too spoiled by the Z glass. :-D After buying the 50mm f/1.8 S, I just couldn't get myself to put up with the adapted primes.

I didn't find the 28mm f/1.8 G very spot-on in low light compared to my Z primes in the same situations. I think that's what ended up turning me off to using it altogether. It performed beautifully on the 24 megapixel D750 and D610, but I think maybe the Z8's 45 megapixels expose some of its weaknesses IMO.

I tested it on my Z7II and am more than happy for my use cases. My best pictures capture emotion or great compositions. Not worried about pixel peeping or doing this...


Credit: Mark Denney

Take care!

JJ

I get it. We all have different needs and expectations. It's a great lens that I enjoyed a lot on my DSLRs, but I do like to pixel peep and crop sometimes, so pixel-level sharpness is somewhat important to me. I make compromises on some focal lengths, but I want more from others.

The subject is almost always going to be more important than pixel-level sharpness, but ideally it's nice to have both in one package.

--

Dream Source Studio | Photography by J.P.

Welcome to Dream Source Studio, home to sports, wildlife, event, travel & landscape photography. Need help improving your own skills as an aspiring photographer? Check out the new photography tips section or feel free to e-mail me with your questions!

www.dreamsourcestudio.com

@TheSoaringSprite

 

[JOrmsby]

I'm in favor of muffins, but really wish Nikon would stop with the cheap plastic mounts. I know people on here will say it saves weight, cost, and supposedly makes no difference, but the feel and confidence of a metal mount is much more premium, and fitting to the Nikon brand than those cheap@ss plastic toy ones.

 

[musicshootr]

Agreed

 

[Poldersnapper]

I had one of those and hated it. But it was probably just a lemon.
The 28mm f/2 AIS? That lens was a different story entirely, an absolute banger of a lens whether on film or higher-res digital!

Now that would be something, a Nikon Z 28mm f/2.0 S with the optical excellence of the legendary Nikkor f/2 28mm AI/AIS

André

 

[pluton]

Now that would be something, a Nikon Z 28mm f/2.0 S with the optical excellence of the legendary Nikkor f/2 28mm AI/AIS

Nikon---or whoever actually would design it-- can do way better now, optical performance-wise, than they did back in the 1970's with the 28/2, as nice a lens as it was. The "race" is on ... between our imagined Nikon Z 28 S-line lens and Cosina's Voigtlander M-mount 28/2 Apo trickling down to Z mount in a year or two.

--
-Keith B-