The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Wide dilemma

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Doing all my photography with the D810, I need to have access to quality lenses for my most commonly used focal lengths. My standard travel setup at the moment is 20/28/50/105mm, which works very well. I'm very happy with the 28/2.0 AiS and the 105/1.8 AiS, but the 20mm f/3.5 AiS simply isn't good enough.

So I'm considering alternatives, and it would be interesting to hear from those who have experience with these lenses. The alternatives are:

Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 AF-S
The obvious alternative. Great reviews, large aperture, fast AF. But how is the build quality? How is it to focus manually? Apart from being sharp, how do the photos look?

Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8
Another obvious alternative. Image quality is said to be great, it covers three important focal lengths (15, 20 and 28mm) and it features image stabilisation. Unfortunately, it's also more or less as large and heavy as three primes, which means that not only doesn't it offer any weight savings to brag about, but when I use it, I will have all those three lenses mounted at the front of my cameras simultaneously.

Zeiss 18mm f/3.5
My current setup is mostly manual focus, something that I'm very happy with. The Zeiss 18mm seems to be a nice compromise with regards to price, size, weight and focal length. This is a lens to really lust for, or so it seems. The only disadvantage that I can see is the relatively narrow aperture. How is it to live with?

Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AiS
This is the outsider. I've tried the AF version, but that was ten years ago on a DX camera. I know that it isn't perfect, but from what I read, it's better than my current 20mm, but how much better? The main attractions are small size and reasonable price. Oh... and it matches my other AiS lenses :)

Any other alternatives to consider?
 
D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
Jorgen, I've got the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 AF-S and highly recommend it. Excellent build quality, but not as metallic and heavy as the Zeiss 21mm Distagon T* f/2.8, the so-called "gold standard" at that focal length.

Here's a sample from the Nikon 20mm prime (I can provide a link to a full-sized JPEG if you're interested):



Although you didn't mention it, the Nikon 14-24mm zoom is worthy of consideration. It's perhaps the best super-wide zoom available and does very well at the extremes. But not better than primes. And it doesn't easily take filters. And it's heavy and big. And...

The other lens I'd recommend is the yet to be released Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art lens. I've got that lens on pre-order, but will keep the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 even if the Sigma proves to be as sharp. The Nikon is just that good.

I'm selling a Zeiss 15mm Distagon T* for the same reason I sold the Zeiss 21mm - my difficulty in using manual focus and the 14-24mm zoom overlap in focal lengths.

Joe
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Jorgen, I've got the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 AF-S and highly recommend it. Excellent build quality, but not as metallic and heavy as the Zeiss 21mm Distagon T* f/2.8, the so-called "gold standard" at that focal length.

Here's a sample from the Nikon 20mm prime (I can provide a link to a full-sized JPEG if you're interested):

Although you didn't mention it, the Nikon 14-24mm zoom is worthy of consideration. It's perhaps the best super-wide zoom available and does very well at the extremes. But not better than primes. And it doesn't easily take filters. And it's heavy and big. And...

The other lens I'd recommend is the yet to be released Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art lens. I've got that lens on pre-order, but will keep the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 even if the Sigma proves to be as sharp. The Nikon is just that good.

I'm selling a Zeiss 15mm Distagon T* for the same reason I sold the Zeiss 21mm - my difficulty in using manual focus and the 14-24mm zoom overlap in focal lengths.

Joe
Sorry Joe,

BUT I owned this lens and choosing it over a 24 prime is just ridiculous - it is what you said - heavy, big and I never could really get friend with IQ especially at the wide end in the edges .....

So if you do not want (need) a WA zoom, any of the primes is doing a better job.

Especially considering size and weight and IQ

Just my 5c

Peter
 
D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
Peter, I wasn't suggesting that the 14-24mm zoom (or the Zeiss 21mm Distagon) is preferable to either the 20mm f/1.8 or the Sigma 24mm Art. It's just another alternative to consider. Different strokes for different folks. My first choice would be the new Sigma 24mm Art, if Jorgen can wait that long.

Joe
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Peter, I wasn't suggesting that the 14-24mm zoom (or the Zeiss 21mm Distagon) is preferable to either the 20mm f/1.8 or the Sigma 24mm Art. It's just another alternative to consider. Different strokes for different folks. My first choice would be the new Sigma 24mm Art, if Jorgen can wait that long.

Joe
Joe,

I would also wait for the Sigma to tell the truth.

But coming back to the Nikkor 14-24 - I was really disappointed by that lens and I cannot understand all the glowing praise all over the internet. I even much preferred the Canon 2.8/16-35 which was in every aspect a much, Much, MUCH better lens - if not the best WA zoom available.

But tastes are different I understand :)

Peter
 

mmbma

Active member
I gotta say i'm a little worried about these reviews. I just bought a used 14-24 and it's in the mail!
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
20's in Nikkor are tough. Perhaps my favorite 20 was the ZF 18. But my copy of the 17-35/2.8 while slightly poorer at the extreme corners at 17, was actually sharper in the central ⅔ of the frame compared to the Zeiss from wide open up. Then the fact it's pretty good all the way through the focal range, it has become my 17, 20, 24, and 35 of choice. (My 28 ASPH remains king of my 28 range ;) )
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Nikon 20mm f/1.8 AF-S ...
High praise, Joe, for what seems a relatively inexpensive 20mm lens! The photo looks terrific.

G
 

Arne Hvaring

Well-known member
Hi Jørgen,
if you manage manual focus with such a wide lens (I am struggling), I'd suggest giving the 21 mm ZF2 Distagon a try. A great lens (indeed the gold standard in this FL as Joe points out), just beware som curvature of field (plane of focus moving towards the camera near the edges) that must be dealt with. But none of these lenses have a completely flat field I think. Otherwise it gives you outstanding sharpness, microcontrast and saturation in the best Zeiss tradition.
Below a few shots with this lens under varying conditions.





 
D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
20's in Nikkor are tough. Perhaps my favorite 20 was the ZF 18. But my copy of the 17-35/2.8 while slightly poorer at the extreme corners at 17, was actually sharper in the central ⅔ of the frame compared to the Zeiss from wide open up. Then the fact it's pretty good all the way through the focal range, it has become my 17, 20, 24, and 35 of choice. (My 28 ASPH remains king of my 28 range ;) )
Jack, I agree that a good copy of the classic 17-35mm f/2.8 is hard to beat over its entire focal length range. I found over 3,000 photos in my LR catalog taken with that lens from 2002-10. It was my "go to" WA. That being said, I'd recommend you try the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 AF-S. It's a stunner.

Nikon 20mm f/1.8 AF-S ...
High praise, Joe, for what seems a relatively inexpensive 20mm lens! The photo looks terrific.

G
Thanks Godfrey. Yes, the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 AF-S surprised me, and has received stellar reviews, too. One of my friends calls me the Czar of Sharpness, and this lens has my seal of approval. :salute:

Joe
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I really liked the Zeiss 21/2.8 when I still had my Canon 5dIII.
But if I imagine you want to carry that lens and the 50 ART and 1 or 2 other lenses you are close to medium format weight and bulk :loco:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Thanks a bunch boys. I knew I could trust you to confuse me even more :D

I have obviously considered the 14-24 as well, but the new Tamron is probably just as good with a more usable reach and at a lower price. Both are beasts though, and if I'm going to live with a lens with a large bulb, that would probably be the Zeiss 15mm (Yes, I've looked at your ad umpteen times, Joe) with its superb wide open performance. The "Dream Team" for me would be the Zeiss 15 and the Sigma 24 (or Zeiss 21), but that's $3-4,000. I'm not sure if I can afford that this side of Christmas.

The Zeiss 21 has also been out of my equation so far because of price, maybe wrongly so. So the sensible (read: affordable) choices seem to be the Nikkor 20mm, which would fit straight into my current line-up, or the Sigma 24, which would mess it up completely, making my 28mm obsolete. Then I would need a 35mm also, right?

Zeiss 15 or 18, Sigma 24 and Zeiss or Sigma 35? Then I could go for some cheapish Nikkor 55-60mm macro for the normal. Or simply go for Sigma 24 + 50 for now and reduce my lineup to three lenses until I can afford the Zeiss 15mm.

A couple of words about why I'm sure I will buy the wide Zeiss sooner or later:
From what I can see, this is a lens that really shines wide open, and since part of my work is industrial photography under very difficult lighting and space circumstances, this seems to be a very interesting lens. Also, it can take relatively "normal" filters, should it be needed.

I do also prefer lenses of solid construction and with little or no electronics. My gear does get a lot of abuse, both while travelling and at the places I take photos. This is one reason why I'm a bit skeptical towards Sigma and Tamron. What happens to the lens if I drop it or crash it into some concrete column? The AiS lenses have no problems with that, and it's my impression that the Zeiss lenses would survive also.
 
D

Deleted member 7792

Guest
...if I'm going to live with a lens with a large bulb, that would probably be the Zeiss 15mm (Yes, I've looked at your ad umpteen times, Joe) with its superb wide open performance.
I'd ship it to Pratamnak just for you. :D

The Zeiss 21 has also been out of my equation so far because of price, maybe wrongly so. So the sensible (read: affordable) choices seem to be the Nikkor 20mm, which would fit straight into my current line-up, or the Sigma 24, which would mess it up completely, making my 28mm obsolete. Then I would need a 35mm also, right?

Zeiss 15 or 18, Sigma 24 and Zeiss or Sigma 35? Then I could go for some cheapish Nikkor 55-60mm macro for the normal. Or simply go for Sigma 24 + 50 for now and reduce my lineup to three lenses until I can afford the Zeiss 15mm.
Kit lineup idea:

● Nikon 20mm f/1.8 or Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art
● Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art
● Zeiss 100mm Makro Planar

In my opinion, no need for a 35mm if you've got the 20mm or 24mm and are shooting a 36MP camera. With high MP camera sensors, cropping is "the new normal".

I do also prefer lenses of solid construction and with little or no electronics. My gear does get a lot of abuse, both while travelling and at the places I take photos. This is one reason why I'm a bit skeptical towards Sigma and Tamron. What happens to the lens if I drop it or crash it into some concrete column? The AiS lenses have no problems with that, and it's my impression that the Zeiss lenses would survive also.
I was initially skeptical of the Sigma Art lenses as well. But Sigma has raised their game with the Art series and has produced lenses that are well constructed and have pro specifications. I can't answer your question about dropping or crashing these lenses (and I hope I don't suffer that experience), but I do understand your concern.

Joe
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
The Nikkor 20/1.8G is appealing, but then so is the yet to be released Sigma 24 ART. If I check my EXIFs, I use the 17-35 at 22 to 25 almost all of the time, and so the 24 seems like a morebetter idea for me :D
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I'd ship it to Pratamnak just for you. :D

Kit lineup idea:

● Nikon 20mm f/1.8 or Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art
● Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art
● Zeiss 100mm Makro Planar

In my opinion, no need for a 35mm if you've got the 20mm or 24mm and are shooting a 36MP camera. With high MP camera sensors, cropping is "the new normal".

Joe
Looks like a sensible suggestion, except I won't change the 105mm for the Zeiss right now, since the old Nikkor is doing a good enough job as it is. Swapping it for an 85/135mm combo would be more interesting when the time comes.

Whenever I come back from Australia, I'll ask the local post office if they accept 15mm packages ;)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Travel kit: 28 ASPH, 50 ART, 105 DC OR 70-200/4. The Samyang 14 get's left in the hotel room most of the time unless it's an old city -- it's amazing how often those extra few mm come in handy in tighter urban areas. In a pinch though, I'll grab a couple frame "stitch set" with the 28.

Landscape kit: 17-35, 24 PC-E which is now soon to be a 24 ART, 50 ART, 85/1.4 OR 85 PC-E.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I really liked the Zeiss 21/2.8 when I still had my Canon 5dIII.
But if I imagine you want to carry that lens and the 50 ART and 1 or 2 other lenses you are close to medium format weight and bulk :loco:
You have a point, and while I don't worry too much about the weight, the bulk of some of the AF lenses, particularly Sigma's Art Series, is a concern. This, in addition to my preference for manual focus for the time being, is an important reason for my fascination with the Zeiss and AiS lenses. They are simply smaller, although not always lighter.
 

Arne Hvaring

Well-known member
I ordered the Nikkor 1,8/20mm in November, no show, still backordered here. In the meantime two things happened:
1. I dug out my DG-2 loupe (harking back to my days with the F3) and adapted it to the D810. This has helped MF considerably, even with WA lenses, i.e. the ZF 21mm.
2. The Sigma ART 1,4/24 mm was announced. I have the 35mm and the 50mm Sigmas already and the are excellent.
Good as the Nikkor 21mm undoubtedly is, I will now probably cancel my order for it and wait for the Sigma 24. Hopefully it will be of the same caliber as the predecessors.
 
Top