Nikon Z 24-70 f2.8 S vs Z 28-75: Considering the purchase of a f2.8 zoom and wondering if anyone has had experience with both lenses and what your recommendation would be. I’m...

Chicago312 Loc: Western suburb, Chicago

Considering the purchase of a f2.8 zoom and wondering if anyone has had experience with both lenses and what your recommendation would be.

I’m considering f2.8 for the shallower depth of field and low light situations; I need a zoom as there are many times where it is not practical to be changing lenses (sports, events)

I know the 24-70 is heavier, more expensive, but has 24mm and more fancy coatings and buttons/controls
The 28-75 is lighter, cheaper, has a closer minimum focus distance, but lacks 4 mm on the short end and no AF/MF button.

I currently have the 14-30 mm f4 S, 28mm f2.8 and 40mm f2
I shoot both photos and videos; my interests lay in sports, music/concerts, travel & food
I plan to get the 24-120 mm f4 S at some point (for the extra range, and as general walk-around travel lens) - the 14-30 and 24-120 will be my travel lens combo.

Thank you

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Chicago312 wrote:

Considering the purchase of a f2.8 zoom and wonder... (show quote)

The 24-70mm lacks 5mm on the long end and is an S Line lens, the 28-75mm lacks 4mm on the short end and is not an S Line lens. Consider what’s more important to YOU and don’t worry about what’s important to anybody else.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Chicago312 wrote:

Considering the purchase of a f2.8 zoom and wonder... (show quote)

You say you like sports, but have no lenses for that, or plans for a lens for that. The current Z 100-400 would be my choice but Nikon should be coming out with a 200-600 later this year.
The 24-70 or 28-70 will be paper weights if you add the 24-120. So, if you are going with the 24-120 why bother with the other two. One stop is not that big of deal.

tshift Loc: Overland Park, KS.

Chicago312 wrote:

Considering the purchase of a f2.8 zoom and wonder... (show quote)

I don't think you would be happy with short lens for sports, for all others it would be ok. I shoot sports and my 80-400 4.5-5.6 was ok. My 80-200 2.8 was real good, indoors especially. I use my 200-500mm f/5.6 outdoors for all sports. Great lens, love it. Not good once it get a little dark, not a good low light lens. It has been my experience the it is wise to rent what you are interested in purchasing so you can see what it actually does. Hope it works out for you. Thanks and BE SAFE!!

Tom

larryepage Loc: Where there's still a little sanity.

Chicago312 wrote:

Considering the purchase of a f2.8 zoom and wonder... (show quote)

These lenses differ in important ways far beyond their focal length boundaries. If those differences are not apparent or important to you, I would suggest making the less expensive choice.

But be sure that whatever you choose will do the job you ask of it. I'm working right now with a drill team mother who is struggling to come to grips with the fact that she needs a longer lens to do what she wants to do.

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

You already hit on it. 4mm wider on the wide end is significantly greater and potentially useful than 5mm longer on the long end. YMMV. Good luck with your decision.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

billnikon wrote:

You say you like sports, but have no lenses for that, or plans for a lens for that. The current Z 100-400 would be my choice but Nikon should be coming out with a 200-600 later this year.
The 24-70 or 28-70 will be paper weights if you add the 24-120. So, if you are going with the 24-120 why bother with the other two. One stop is not that big of deal.

The OP said he was looking for an f/2.8 lens for shallow DoF, and asked specifically about the 24-70mm and the
28-75mm.

1grumpybear

Chicago312 wrote:

Considering the purchase of a f2.8 zoom and wonder... (show quote)

Are you asking about Nikon Z mirrorless lens. I own both 24-70 2.8 lens for the D6 and the 24-70 2.8 Z lens for my Z9. I use for indoor sports. The D6 is now my backup for the Z9. I would rent the lens and compare the results. I buy the body to accomplish what I want and lens for the quality I am looking for.

photoman43

billnikon wrote:

You say you like sports, but have no lenses for that, or plans for a lens for that. The current Z 100-400 would be my choice but Nikon should be coming out with a 200-600 later this year.
The 24-70 or 28-70 will be paper weights if you add the 24-120. So, if you are going with the 24-120 why bother with the other two. One stop is not that big of deal.

When i ordered my Z9, I got it with the 24-120mm f4S. I did not want the weight of a faster f2.8 zoom. When I need a fast lens, I get a prime. But that is me.

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Ventura County, California

When I switched to full frame I focused on purchasing the F mount 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 ("Holy Trinity"). The quality of the glass, sharpness and quality of build is superb. I will eventually go to mirrorless Z9 (currently shooting with a D850) and up my game with Z mount glass to match the Holy Trinity array.

Although having not held or shot with any Z glass yet I have read nothing but positive fantastic reviews about the new line. Lighter, sharp, quality builds that are Nikon. If you got the cash buy the f/2.8. I would bet you won't be disappointed in long run.

Jim

fstoprookie Loc: Central Valley of California

Chicago312 wrote:

Considering the purchase of a f2.8 zoom and wonder... (show quote)

Well It looks like you have the low end covered. I shoot sports and you may get away with an f4 for indoor sports (basketball, Volleyball) but you need either a 70-200mm, or a 100-400mm for outdoor sports (Football, or Soccer).
Get the combo of 24-120mm & the 100-400mm lenses to cover your outdoor sports. BTW - I shot a volleyball game last night with my 24-120mm f4 S lens on my Z9 inside a gym and it did the job very nicely. See pictures attached. I shot these @ 1/125 for some blur to show movement

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Chicago312 wrote:

Considering the purchase of a f2.8 zoom and wonder... (show quote)

I'm presently also pondering which of the two versions for the Z to purchase as I've found my Nikon Z 24-70 f/4.0 will not get me adequately blurred backgrounds for serious portrait work. Although great in every other respect for me.

I came across this review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm5-AjIdwBQ of the Nikon 28-75mm f/2.8 which I consider pretty balanced and fair so may be of some help to you.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

As an owner of the 24-70/2.8 S lens, I can tell you it's a stellar performer. YMMV. Best of luck.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

fstoprookie wrote:

Well It looks like you have the low end covered. I... (show quote)

Awesome action shots 💜💜💜💜💜

SueScott Loc: Hammondsville, Ohio

The current edition of NPhoto gave the Z28-75 2.8 lens a 5/5 in its review. I bought one several months ago mainly for use when shooting events at our church b/c my Z70-200 wasn't wide enough at the short end and I needed a bit more reach than the Z24-70 provided. I've found it to be very capable and have used it quite a bit as a general purpose walkaround lens.