16-35/2.8 is really missing from Z mount

I know Nikon thinks that 14-24mm lenses are the be all and end all in landscape photography, teamed up with a 24-70 - but I know many that prefer a 16-35 lens which nikon doesn't offer. I consider 24mm to be too short for the 14-24 to be that useful, and in places like coasts / near waterfalls, waves I like a one lens solution for my UWA photography. Does anyone else wish they would make one?

I feel like I'd want even narrower, like a 20-40.
The 14-30f4 basically gets you there, and for landscapes you're generally stopping down anyway, so the f4 doesn't hurt as much.

Nikon never really had one for the F mount either. There was a 17-35/2.8 AF-S from 1999, but it’s design was very dated by the time 36MP bodies came along in 2012, e.g. the D800. There is also the f4 16-35 AF-S with VR, but that is not f2.8.

The 14-24/2.8 and 14-30/4 should be ok for now. Nikon may add more lenses later on. There is also the 17-28/2.8 transplant from Tamron to consider.

Really like the 14-30/4 from the time I spent with it. Small, goes to 14mm, takes filters, not expensive. Optically it's not as good as the 14-24/2.8 but it's good enough and all the other factors make up for it.

I agree; I'd much rather have a really great 17-35/2.8 (16-35/etc) than a 14-24. But whether such a lens would meet my admittedly super-high quality standards? It may not, so even if they had one, would I use it? Not sure the answer is yes. Wide angles are difficult designs as primes; a zoom wide angle, even more so. But then again, I don't have the addiction to 14mm that a lot of photographers do, so I might be the oddball out on this one!

I feel like I'll end up with the 14-24 eventually, I'm really picky about wide angle in that I want to have the option for 14mm (or even 12) sometimes, and with the 24-70f4 I don't feel I'm lacking in a 'standard' zoom range for landscape shots.

You forgot to mention Z 17-28 f2.8. I have it and it's a great lens, better that AF-S 16-35 f4 was. It has a lot of positive reviews and yes, it would've been nice if it reached 35 or 40mm, but I can always crop or switch my Z7 into DX mode and have effective 42mm.

I don't shoot landscape, but many a press photographer and photojournalist would favour a 16-35mm/70-200mm 2.8 combo, because they can capture more with one on each body whilst only giving up 50mm in between. No loss!

Sony and Canon offer such 15/16-35mm lenses, whilst Nikon does not.

As always, it comes down to picking a system that's aligned to your needs.

These days I think brand ethos enters into it too.

I see Canon and Sony aligning more with jobbing, wedding photographers, photojournalists and the like.

Not just in lenses, but also by offering smaller and lighter kit.

Wheres Nikon seem to be carving out a niche more aligned to landscape, BIF, sports photographers and the like.

Size and weight is increasingly going out of the window in Nikon land, both in bodies and often in lenses too.

Yes but that 17-28 is just slightly too short of a range. For me it is a miss, wish they'd just do a 16-35.

I think a 16-35 f2.8 or f4 would be a good prospect as others have stated, 24mm at the long end of the 14-24 f2.8 is a little short for waterfalls, and landscapes if you want to avoid swapping lenses as much. It would also be a good travel lens (if it was reasonably small anmd light) as it has decent overlap to the 24-70/24-120.

Nikon needs to prioritize and there are still gaps that, when filled, will sell better. Some of those who would prefer a 16-35/2.8 might not buy it now that they already got the 14-24 or 14-30.
The 8-15 fisheye and the PC lenses will probably sell better and come first. And we might not see them before their F versions are sold out bc else these stay on the shelves forever.

Right, Nikon is already providing three wide zoom options: 14-24/2.8, 14-30/4, and 17-28/2.8. Almost all of us have some sorts of 24-** zoom so that the 24-40mm range is aleady covered. While some of us would like a 16-35 or 17-35, the long end of those wide zoom ending at 24mm or 28mm is not some huge hole to fill. Rather, it is another mostly redundant lens on top of the three existing ones.

I agree it is a higher priority for Nikon to fill a fisheye and some PC-E (macro) lenses as those lenses could really take advantage of the Z mount.

For me, it’s the ‘normal’ zoom wider than 24mm on the wide end that’s really missing. Like the m43 10-25 f/1.7 (20-50 f/3.4 equivalent). Just a superbly useful range.
I’d love to see a Z 19-58 f/2.8 S. Instant but for me, more than any camera body.

I am quite happy with 24-70 and 24-120. Sony recently added a 20-70mm/f4 for $1100. I certainly would like to cover as wide as 20mm, but I wonder what kind of optical compromises that would come with it. Also the Sony is an f4 lens. f2.8 would have tougher requirements. Personally, I wouldn't mind using a 24-70 and some 16-35 with plenty of overlap between the two, and change lenses once in a while.

The m43 zoom I mentioned is an f/1.7 (actual, not equiv) so the ray angles are even more extreme. Whilst the very widest end wasn't the best, to me it was immensely useful to have. F/2.8 shouldn't really be a big ask IMO as long as the long end is kept modest. I'd settle for 50mm but since it's Nikon, I'll pitch it at 58mm ;)
But I guess it really comes down to the way you shoot. Most people need say, two zooms to cover from ultra wide to modest tele. It's just where the crossover point is that makes one zoom more useful for one person vs another. I do all my street photography from around 20mm to normal. My ideal second zoom would be a 85-150 f/2.

That's my preference. If I was using a Z full frame body, I would probably use the Tamron 20-40/2.8 via an adapter.
For someone used to 12, 14 or 16mm, 20 will not suffice though.

I too wish for a modern-day equivalent of the old 17-35/2.8, my 2006 copy of which is still useable for some purposes, except that it's terrible at 35mm. I'm considering using a Canon EF 16-35/2.8 iii ---a well-reputed lens---operated through a Fringer EF to NZ adapter---on my Z7ii. I would frankly enjoy the direct mechanical focus of the EF lens as opposed to Focus By Wire.