Nikon NIKKOR Z 28-75mm f/2.8 Lens

After working in photography for fifty-plus years, I've owned a lot of lenses. The Nikkor Z 50mm is the best I've ever experienced for super sharp, well-corrected photography.The first thing you should know is that it's as good for the big picture as it is for the small one. I bought it to solve a problem I was having, loss of detail at the sides of giant prints I was making. I'm shooting semi-trucks and trailers, pictures where the rivets on the end of the truck should show as well as the ones in the center. The Z 50s images do exactly that. It's remarkable how well it covers the field. The pictures I've been making with this lens and a Z7 remind me of large format camera images. They have the same relaxed, effortless quality we used to get from shooting with ... MoreAfter working in photography for fifty-plus years, I've owned a lot of lenses. The Nikkor Z 50mm is the best I've ever experienced for super sharp, well-corrected photography.The first thing you should know is that it's as good for the big picture as it is for the small one. I bought it to solve a problem I was having, loss of detail at the sides of giant prints I was making. I'm shooting semi-trucks and trailers, pictures where the rivets on the end of the truck should show as well as the ones in the center. The Z 50s images do exactly that. It's remarkable how well it covers the field. The pictures I've been making with this lens and a Z7 remind me of large format camera images. They have the same relaxed, effortless quality we used to get from shooting with giant pieces of film.It's a great macro lens too. I'll be using it to convert thousands of old negatives using the Nikon ES2 Slide/Negative converter so the first thing I did was to shoot comparisons with my existing setup, a bellows, and a Nikkor 55mm macro I'd been using. No comparison! The old Nikon did a nice job but the new one shows me a lot I'd been missing. I think I'm going to revisit my hero shots and give them a fresh treatment.It's not often I'm impressed by a new lens. This one delighted me with its quality.

This is a great little lens, for the right use cases. As many others have pointed out, if macro capability is your top (or only) priority, you owe it to yourself to save a little bit longer and spring for the 105mm. With this lens, you have to get really close to get 1:1 magnification, and at close focus, effective aperture decreases. The lens is plenty sharp, but those things CAN create headaches. Plus, if you got your Z camera with a 24-70, the 105mm obviously extends your range a bit (whereas the 50 does not).Where this lens shines is as a compact, lightweight walkaround lens with some weather resistence. On paper, it's not as bright as the 40mm pancake (muffin?), but IMO, it outperforms the 40mm even when you stop the latter down.For me (Z5 owner who shoots ... MoreThis is a great little lens, for the right use cases. As many others have pointed out, if macro capability is your top (or only) priority, you owe it to yourself to save a little bit longer and spring for the 105mm. With this lens, you have to get really close to get 1:1 magnification, and at close focus, effective aperture decreases. The lens is plenty sharp, but those things CAN create headaches. Plus, if you got your Z camera with a 24-70, the 105mm obviously extends your range a bit (whereas the 50 does not).Where this lens shines is as a compact, lightweight walkaround lens with some weather resistence. On paper, it's not as bright as the 40mm pancake (muffin?), but IMO, it outperforms the 40mm even when you stop the latter down.For me (Z5 owner who shoots mostly static subjects and who spends a lot of time walking & hiking around), the 28mm and 50mm f/2.8s make for a more appealing combo than 28 f/2.8 and 40 f/2.If I wanted to pick just one compact prime to carry, hands-down it would be the 50mm f/2.8. It costs more, but delivers more. Plus, as good as the Z 50mm f/1.8 lens is, I think the difference is bigger on the higher-res cameras. With a 24MP Z5, I just didn't think the difference was big enough (for what I do) to justify losing macro capability and adding size & weight. If this all sounds reasonable, you'll probably like this lens a lot. If you can't wrap your head around passing up the superior optics of the 50mm 1.8, or if macro photography is your bread and butter, you won't be as thrilled with this lens.

TLDR; This lens has a long and slow focus range and when it can?t find focus it takes way too long to hunt. If you have the 24-70 f4 kit lens, save your money and skip this one for general use. If you need a 50mm 1:1 macro lens, are willing to pay ~$600, and are willing to manual focus for your images then go for it, it does have great modern optics. My issue is the mechanical implementation.I was so excited for this lens. After a long wait, a native mount micro lens for my Z6. I had watched videos and read some reviews and thought I had a good idea how this lens would perform. Man am I disappointed though. Let me level set with my expectation, I wanted a solid autofocus lens that could get in close but also be a general use lens. While this lens meets my macro ... MoreTLDR; This lens has a long and slow focus range and when it can?t find focus it takes way too long to hunt. If you have the 24-70 f4 kit lens, save your money and skip this one for general use. If you need a 50mm 1:1 macro lens, are willing to pay ~$600, and are willing to manual focus for your images then go for it, it does have great modern optics. My issue is the mechanical implementation.I was so excited for this lens. After a long wait, a native mount micro lens for my Z6. I had watched videos and read some reviews and thought I had a good idea how this lens would perform. Man am I disappointed though. Let me level set with my expectation, I wanted a solid autofocus lens that could get in close but also be a general use lens. While this lens meets my macro expectations it is not a good choice for general use in my opinion. First off the only place this lens actually has a 2.8 aperture is at infinity, as soon as you focus on something closer you will see that aperture number increase so less light is getting to the sensor. If you are shooting in manual mode then you need may have to adjust settings just because you need to focus a bit closer. Or if you just set the aperture to f5.6 you have a constant aperture lens as it is the max aperture at 1:1(joke with truth in it). This is fine when shooting macro as you will be stopping down anyway but I have a 50 f4 already in my 24-70. As a macro lens I have no problems with it but it is marketed as macro and general purpose. The core issue I had was that I missed general shots (outside the macro range) when it was hunting for focus in the macro range. I was using pinpoint in AF-S and AF-C modes and about half the time it ran the lens through the entire focus range just to arrive back at the focus point. When used with the eye af and tracking I did not have as much of an issue but that is not how I regularly shoot. I think this could have been solved with a focus limit switch that keeps the lens between infinity to .19m range. It would make the AF hunting less of an issue. Nikon, when this lens gets revised that would be great to see. That and the S line treatment with a quieter focus motor/mechanism. It is not loud but it can be heard in video, at least on my copy.When this lens can get focus it has the ability to takes great images that are sharp edge to edge, see below for an unedited image. For the price tag though I am disappointed in this performance of this lens when I know Nikon can do better.To sum up, If you need a 50mm 1:1 macro lens, are willing to pay $600, and are willing to manual focus for your images then this is the one. Otherwise skip it. Your mileage may vary this is just my experience.*I have a Z6 with the latest firmware available at the time. I am comparing this lenses performance with the 24-70mm f4 Z mount lens for general photography and AF performance and a Micro Nikkor 55mm f3.5 with M2 extension for macro performance.