Tamron Introduces G2 of the 28-75mm/f2.8 in Z Mount

[ShunCheung]

Recall that Nikon's Nikkor 28-75mm/f2.8 in the Z mount is essentially version 1 (G1) of the Tamron lens, at least the optics seems identical, but when Nikon introduced that lens two years ago, Tamron already had a G2 version for Sony E, with improved optics. Now Tamron is making the G2 available in the Nikon Z mount, but this one carries Tamron's brand name, not Nikkor as in the previous Z version.

The new Tamron lens is $999 in the US. But the Sony version is $899 and currently with $100 off so that it is essentially $1000 for Nikon and $800 for Sony for the time being. Perhaps there will be discounts down the road.

https://www.tamron.com/global/consumer/lenses/a063/

[mike_halliwell]

From the Tamron link above..

■ For Sony E-mount includes:
・Fast Hybrid AF
・Eye AF
・Direct Manual Focus (DMF)
・In-camera lens correction (shading, chromatic aberration, distortion)
・AF Assist

■ For Nikon Z mount includes:
- Hybrid AF
- Eye AF
- M/A Mode
- In-camera lens correction (shading, chromatic aberration, distortion)
 

 

So, Nikon's doesn't have FAST Hybrid AF?

Doesn't have Direct Manual Focus, whatever that is

Doesn't have AF Assist, whatever that is

Does have M/A Mode.

I don't understand how Eye AF is a lens feature??  I must be missing something!

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't think the specs are meant to be compared across mounts. They use Nikon terminology for Nikon mount (M/A mode, for example) and Sony terminology for the Sony mount version. I wouldn't worry about the differences. The new Z mount lens has a linear motor so it should be very fast.

[mike_halliwell]

2 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

I don't think the specs are meant to be compared across mounts.

Sure, I agree.

Howabout Eye AF as a lens feature?

[ilkka_nissila]

32 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

Sure, I agree.

Howabout Eye AF as a lens feature?

Apparently, eye AF is not available with all camera + lens combinations in some mounts. I don't know why, maybe the subject recognition needs teaching data captured with a particular lens to work? Anyway, Tamron says it does work with this lens.

[bgelfand]

Here is a review of the G2 lens for the Sony mount. It would appear that the G2 is a distinct improvement over the older model which Nikon is selling under its name.

https://youtu.be/26pjqVssOUQ

[ShunCheung]

14 minutes ago, bgelfand said:

Here is a review of the G2 lens for the Sony mount. It would appear that the G2 is a distinct improvement over the older model which Nikon is selling under its name.

Both Tamron's 28-75/2.8 and 70-180/2.8 have second generations (but not the 17-28/2.8), and those 2nd-gen version were available when Nikon introduced theirs using Tamron G1 optics. One would assume there must be some improvements in G2. In particular, the G2 70-180/2.8 has optical VR (VC in Tamron terminology). It is a bit strange that Nikon is still selling old optics. Perhaps Nikon will discontinue the 28-75/2.8 Nikkor soon.

[bgelfand]

I do not know why the link to the video review of the 28-75 G2 (for the Sony mount) shows up as a black line in my post, but it you click on the "black line, the review on YouTube  will play.

 

Shun, if you can fix it, will you, please. I can no longer edit my post.

Edited April 3 by bgelfand

[ShunCheung]

6 minutes ago, bgelfand said:

I do not know why the link to the video review of the 28-75 G2 (for the Sony mount) shows up as a black line in my post, but it you click on the "black line, the review on YouTube  will play.

 

Shun, if you can fix it, will you, please. I can no longer edit my post.

I have no idea what you did, but I replaced yours with just the link to YouTube. Hope this is what you want.

[bgelfand]

Just what I wanted, Shun. Thank you very much.

[ilkka_nissila]

12 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

Both Tamron's 28-75/2.8 and 70-180/2.8 have second generations (but not the 17-28/2.8), and those 2nd-gen version were available when Nikon introduced theirs using Tamron G1 optics. One would assume there must be some improvements in G2. In particular, the G2 70-180/2.8 has optical VR (VC in Tamron terminology). It is a bit strange that Nikon is still selling old optics. Perhaps Nikon will discontinue the 28-75/2.8 Nikkor soon.

I personally find the Nikon Z 24-70/2.8 S to be my favourite lens. When I bought it, it was hard to find (with waiting times of several months) but I could find it in one store. I guess Nikon wanted the 28-75 to be quickly available in large numbers (which it was, some stores had like 30 in stock) and perhaps it wasn't possible to achieve that with the G2 optics? It could be that Nikon was looking for assistance in manufacturing something to be an alternative to the 24-70 while they had scaled their own lens production down and not able to increase it in the short term for the 24-70 itself (which was in high demand probably because of the Z9 which increased interest in Nikon). Tamron may have had G1 optics in stock while they were just building up G2 production and not able to supply Nikon with a large number of G2 optics while also serving Sony customers. Anyway, I'm just guessing here.

[ShunCheung]

4 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

I personally find the Nikon Z 24-70/2.8 S to be my favourite lens. When I bought it, it was hard to find (with waiting times of several months) but I could find it in one store. I guess Nikon wanted the 28-75 to be quickly available in large numbers (which it was, some stores had like 30 in stock) and perhaps it wasn't possible to achieve that with the G2 optics? It could be that Nikon was looking for assistance in manufacturing something to be an alternative to the 24-70 while they had scaled their own lens production down and not able to increase it in the short term for the 24-70 itself (which was in high demand probably because of the Z9 which increased interest in Nikon). Tamron may have had G1 optics in stock while they were just building up G2 production and not able to supply Nikon with a large number of G2 optics while also serving Sony customers. Anyway, I'm just guessing here.

Nikon introduced the 24-70/2.8 S in early 2019, just months after they announced the Z System. I waited until November 2019 and there was a $300 discount on it.  My local store had it in stock and also paid my sales tax. However, that is a lens I only use occasionally for indoor events. Concerning the 28-75/2.8, Nikon USA pretty much had to discount it immediately, after merely a month or two in early 2022. (Some early purchasers were really annoyed, of course.) I think they had a hard time selling it as Tamron already had the G2 available for Sony E. Now that Nikon allow Tamron to bring G2 to the Z mount, I think Nikon's own 28-75/2.8 is going to be discontinued or at least deeply discounted. Missing 24mm for this type of zoom is very annoying to me, though, regardless of G1 or G2.

[ilkka_nissila]

4 hours ago, ShunCheung said:

Nikon introduced the 24-70/2.8 S in early 2019, just months after they announced the Z System. I waited until November 2019 and there was a $300 discount on it.  My local store had it in stock and also paid my sales tax.

I understand, but availability was scarce in winter 2021-2022 and I could only find one store which had a copy in stock. I believe both the pandemic and Z9 availability made the 24-70/2.8 scarce. It's my most used lens on the Z system and one I use it for walkaround, landscape, architecture, portraits, street and events, i.e. just about everything. I find it so good that I don't even think I needed to have the f/1.8's in this range, which is saying something coming from a prime lens nut such as myself. 😉 

[roland_vink]

On 4/4/2024 at 10:19 AM, ShunCheung said:

It is a bit strange that Nikon is still selling old optics. Perhaps Nikon will discontinue the 28-75/2.8 Nikkor soon.

It would be unusual for Nikon to discontinue a lens so soon after it was introduced. But it is also strange that Nikon used the older optical design for their lens and then to allow Tamron to introduce the new version in direct competition with their Nikon branded model.

[ShunCheung]

15 hours ago, roland_vink said:

It would be unusual for Nikon to discontinue a lens so soon after it was introduced. But it is also strange that Nikon used the older optical design for their lens and then to allow Tamron to introduce the new version in direct competition with their Nikon branded model.

Unless Nikon deeply discount their old G1 version of the 28-75/2.8, and they have already been doing that to some degree, who in the right mind would buy the G1 optics instead of G2, when both are priced similarly?

[mike_halliwell]

16 minutes ago, ShunCheung said:

who in the right mind would buy the G1 optics instead of G2, when both are priced similarly?

No one! I think the G1 version was a big mistake.

Considering Sony is about to bring out a full frame 24-70mm f2, i'd love to see Nikon go 24 - 140mm f2.8 with VR.

I really like my 24-120mm f4 as a walk-around, but it's a bit short and a bit slow. IBIS is good, but I want more help in dim light.

[ShunCheung]

5 minutes ago, mike_halliwell said:

Considering Sony is about to bring out a full frame 24-70mm f2, i'd love to see Nikon go 24 - 140mm f2.8 with VR.

I really like my 24-120mm f4 as a walk-around, but it's a bit short and a bit slow. IBIS is good, but I want more help in dim light.

Canon's 28-70mm/f2 is a 3-pound lens. I wonder how much any 24-70mm/f2 will weight. I would much rather not carry that kind of weight for a mid zoom, because I tend to hold such lenses for a long time.

Actually I use the 24-70/2.8 and 24-120/4 in low-light conditions. A lot of times I also need the depth of field so that I don't use the 24-70/2.8 wide open; instead I tend to stop down to f5.6 or so. It is the 70-200/2.8 and 400/4.5 that I use wide open to isolate the subjects.

[Dieter Schaefer]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

Nikon go 24 - 140mm f2.8 with VR.

You can have a Tamron 35-150/2.-2.8 right now. $2k and 2.6lbs. The Sony version is $200 cheaper.  I have the F-mount 35-150/2.8-4 and am quite happy with it - despite the rather long short end that I thought would be an issue. I can always carry a A7RIII with the Tamron 20-40/2.8 to make up for that shortcoming - often that's short enough not to have to bother with an additional wide-angle zoom that starts at 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17. I wonder when Tamron will release that lens in Z-mount.

[mike_halliwell]

30 minutes ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

You can have a Tamron 35-150/2.-2.8 right now. $2k

24mm is a very, very LONG way from 35mm!

[Dieter Schaefer]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

24mm is a very, very LONG way from 35mm!

I know. And I always wanted a mid-range walkaround zoom that started at 24 (or 16mm for DX (instead of 17 or 18). I just gave up when anything that wasn't a 24-70/2.8 (which for me was always too short at the long end, in addition to being too heavy and too expensive) turned out to be not that great optically. I didn't want to go with any 28-xx(x) (even though Nikon's 28-105 did work quite well on some cameras) because I thought 28 was too long. But then I realized that the combo of two lenses (Tamron 15-30/2.8 - granted a large and heavy behemoth but optically excellent, and the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4) suited me better than any one-zoom solution I had come across. I have since let go of the 15-30 and often now carry just a 20mm in its place. And a 15mm manual focus prime if I need to cover the even wider option. The 35-150 to me eliminates the need of carrying a 70-200.

 

I am glad I am not in a position were I need the "classic" 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 setup. I always felt the the break at 70mm was quite artificial and not particularly practical. I'd rather see a 20-50(60)/2-2.8 and a 70-180/2-2.8. The Tamron 20-40/2.8 to me is a step in the right direction; I actually purchased it instead of a 20/21mm prime.

 

I wanted the G1 28-75/2.8 in Sony mount when it was released - but luckily I hesitated. I still see no reason to go for the G2 version now as I don't like the limited range. I'd be surprised if Nikon keeps the 28-75 in the program - no one is going to get it now that the G2 is available. There might be contractual obligations in play though that forces Nikon's hand.

Edited April 5 by Dieter Schaefer

[ilkka_nissila]

14 hours ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

I know. And I always wanted a mid-range walkaround zoom that started at 24 (or 16mm for DX (instead of 17 or 18). I just gave up when anything that wasn't a 24-70/2.8 (which for me was always too short at the long end, in addition to being too heavy and too expensive) turned out to be not that great optically.

[clip]

I am glad I am not in a position were I need the "classic" 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 setup. I always felt the the break at 70mm was quite artificial and not particularly practical. I'd rather see a 20-50(60)/2-2.8 and a 70-180/2-2.8. The Tamron 20-40/2.8 to me is a step in the right direction; I actually purchased it instead of a 20/21mm prime.

That's the thing - Nikon put in a lot of effort in designing the 24-70/2.8 (I recall that when they were making the E VR version they said they tested a hundred different designs ...) and in my opinion the 24-70/2.8 Z is just outstanding, and I never could find the same kind of satisfaction from other lenses in this range (i.e. not 24-70/2.8's), in terms of how clear and consistent the images are. I might get a spare copy just in case. 😉 

 

For me 70mm is a good splitting point as it is close to my most used focal length and so having either the 24-70 or 70-200 in my hands I can get those shots and not have to switch all the time. For many kinds of events (PhD dissertations, wedding ceremonies etc.) I find this pair the optimum for my needs. I rarely have a need for a wider than 24 mm focal length when photographing people and with modern cameras the 200mm can be cropped a bit to manage those situations where I need a little bit tighter still (though a 300mm would be better, in many cases I can get by with these two). I would not be able to work with a 16-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 pair as I don't like the extreme focal length of 16 mm and yet I often work in the 35-70 mm range.

 

Sony has a 20-70mm and from what I recall from reviews of it, the 20 mm end has some compromises. So probably 24-70mm is as wide a range as can be made with very high quality and consistency (I know it is subjective and many like 24-105 and 24-120 mm lenses, but I just can't bring myself to liking these extended ranges).

What I think is nice about the (Nikon) 28-75/2.8 is that it's very light weight for a lens of this range and the images I've seen from it are aesthetically pleasing, even if it isn't quite as sharp as the Nikon 24-70/2.8.

 

On the telephoto end I have the 70-200/2.8 and 100-400, and to me the 70-200 is superior optically, the images are just more brilliant (lacking a more precise term). I also think Nikon succeeded with the out-of-focus rendering of the Z 70-200 really nicely as some F-mount versions tend to produce double lines in out-of-focus areas which I do not like and don't quite have the same level of refinement as the Z S-line version. However, I dislike the ring positions on both the 70-200 and 100-400 and I frequently accidentally nudge the manual focus ring. With the F-mount version of the 70-200 (FL) I didn't really do that even though it has the same (annoying) order of the rings. The Z version has very little static friction when rotating the manual focus ring and this is partly why it happens. However, when making fine adjustments to focus, the Z version's design is easier to use so I'm not exactly saying the F version is better, only that I have this issue that I'm accidentally moving to manual focus often with these two Z lenses. To solve the issue I sometimes swap the control and focus ring positions. But then I have other lenses where I don't want them swapped, so it would be nice if the body could remember the customized control settings for each lens separately.

 

Anyway, it's great to see the Tamron 28-75 G II optics available for Nikon so that Nikon Z users have more options.

[mike_halliwell]

It seems x3 is the sweet spot for wide zooms.

I quite like the 20-60mm idea, maybe as a f2. 70mm is never long enough for my use.

Modern high refractive glasses and polymers could mitigate the high weight.

[Dieter Schaefer]

1 hour ago, ilkka_nissila said:

Sony has a 20-70mm and from what I recall from reviews of it, the 20 mm end has some compromises

That lens has massive distortion and high vignetting. And a quite inconsistent performance across the field of view and across the focal lengths. The Tamron 20-40 is a stop faster and performs best at the short end.

1 hour ago, ilkka_nissila said:

For many kinds of events (PhD dissertations, wedding ceremonies etc.) I find this pair the optimum for my needs.

Your and my needs differ substantially - I hardly ever shoot events and my usage is more for travel - a mixture of landscape, architecture, street.

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, Dieter Schaefer said:

my usage is more for travel - a mixture of landscape, architecture, street.

... and birds/wildlife...  😉

[Dieter Schaefer]

2 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

... and birds/wildlife...  😉

Often it's an either/or proposition. I either pack the wildlife equipment with just one general type lens. Or I have the travel setup which might include a 100-400 lens that can do duty for birds/wildlife as well. Only when traveling by car can I afford the luxury of packing more. Which is why a lot of trips from Southern California to Canada or Yellowstone were by car.