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!

Need advice on a 20...

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
It's time for another dedicated 20. I sold off an excellent copy of the 17-35 that at the time was the best 20 I had found for the Nikon, which of course was a mistake I regret. It had the added plus of also being very good at 17, but I used it mostly at 24 and had the ART which was superior so pretty much stopped carrying the zoom. But there have since been a few occasions where my 14 is too wide and the 24 not enough and wished I had a 20. I've considered a re-purchase of this lens, but know that firstly there is sample variability and it might take three or four copies to find another excellent one, and even then the corners were still notably soft at all apertures -- but I'd also get back a decent 17-35 zoom along with it.

Anyway, I miss that focal so time to get one and leaning toward a prime. My initial thought is the ART 20, but then I hear good things about the Nikkor 1.8G. I'm not concerned about the $100 or so difference in price or the ½ stop speed difference, and want the absolute best optical performer. I will likely use the lens for medium distance subject matter at f4 to 8 most of the time. Any thoughts, experiences and image examples you can share would be appreciated!
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
Need advice on a 20 ...


Sounds like you are looking for an autofocus wide (which I would also choose today, see e.g. the text in my old post if you follow the below link also containing a couple of sample photos).


Otherwise there is also the small, light and cheap Voigtländer Color-Skopar 3.5/20mm SLII Aspherical - and the faster, heavier and more expensive Carl Zeiss Distagon 2.8/21mm ZF, both manual focus lenses.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/4...pes-2.html?highlight=Voigtl%E4nder#post474588


The Voigtländer Color-Skopar 3.5/20mm SLII Aspherical

©lick for actual pixels (4.7 Mb)


© • captured with Nikon D800E • AF-S Nikkor 1.8/28mm G • 1.3 sec. at f/5.6 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4



In the D610 thread I also showed some samples with the Carl Zeiss Distagon 2.8/21mm ZF, some of them with RAW file links.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/49045-d610.html
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
The 1.8 20G is a stellar performer from what I have seen in several reviews.

IMHO the 1.8 line of Nikkor G primes are all very good and excellent performers, especially given the pretty low weight compared to 1.4 counterparts ( also other brands) and very attractive price. I BTW also love my 1.8 35 and 85!

If I were in the market for a 20 prime for Nikon my first choice would be the 1.8 20G.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
ZF.2 21mm f/2.8!

When I did my research for that focal length, the Zeiss was the lens that showed the most consistent results across the frame and regardless of aperture. The copy I bought did indeed prove that. Mine is for sale btw., at a local camera store at the moment, but I could ship it across the globe if needed. I don't have a body to mount it on at the moment :(
 

PeterA

Well-known member
It's time for another dedicated 20. I sold off an excellent copy of the 17-35 that at the time was the best 20 I had found for the Nikon, which of course was a mistake I regret. It had the added plus of also being very good at 17, but I used it mostly at 24 and had the ART which was superior so pretty much stopped carrying the zoom. But there have since been a few occasions where my 14 is too wide and the 24 not enough and wished I had a 20. I've considered a re-purchase of this lens, but know that firstly there is sample variability and it might take three or four copies to find another excellent one, and even then the corners were still notably soft at all apertures -- but I'd also get back a decent 17-35 zoom along with it.

Anyway, I miss that focal so time to get one and leaning toward a prime. My initial thought is the ART 20, but then I hear good things about the Nikkor 1.8G. I'm not concerned about the $100 or so difference in price or the ½ stop speed difference, and want the absolute best optical performer. I will likely use the lens for medium distance subject matter at f4 to 8 most of the time. Any thoughts, experiences and image examples you can share would be appreciated!
I no longer have any Nikon bodies or Nikon lenses Jack - however I have become a big fan of Zeiss in Nikon mount - mounted on Leica SL via adaptor.
I suggest that you look at the new Milvus formulation 18/2.8 as an option - the 21 is a beauty but I suispect that they will annouce a new formulation in due course at that focal length.

Just a thought.
 

kxl

New member
Like you, I sold off my 17-35/2.8 AFS, but have not regretted it. I typically used it at 20mm and 24mm, and I prefer using prime lenses for those FL's. I am a big fan of the Sigma ART lenses (I own the 24, 35 and 50), but I've had the Nikon 20/1.8 AFS since before the Sigma 20 ART was released and have no plans of switching. My reasons?

1) More often than not, I stop down when using the 20mm, so f1.4 is not an advantage.

2) I sometimes use filters, which the Sigma does not allow.

3) I appreciate the light weight.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
No Nikon? !!!!!!


Heresy ....


So whats up .... MF or awaiting the new new thing.

I imagine that the Nikon thread will survive on your old captures....


Regards,

Bob
No Nikon digital full frame bodies is probably more correct to say. I still have the D300 and D2Xs, but the Zeiss is a waste on those bodies. Then I have the F80 and the F6, but I mostly shoot portraits with film, and if I need wide, I also have the Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 Ai which is good enough for that old medium :)

The new old thing is m4/3. The money goes to buy furniture and stuff (I'm establishing a second household for myself and... long story), so it will take a year or two before I can set aside any real money for photography... I think :angel:
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Jorgen - we dont need much to make photographs. I've sold off 95% of the stuff I had accumulated over the years and am enjoying shooting - totally refreshed.
Less is more.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
I should clarify I want an AF 20. I should have also added I had an older 20/2.8 AF Nikkor that didn't suit. So looking for a really good (best?) performing AF 20 I can buy new :)
 

D&A

Well-known member
Short answer for the moment. If it has to be an af lens and be consistant enough that you dont have to go through many samples to find a good one, its the Nikon g lens in my opinion. For shear performance I would choose the Zeiss. The wildcard is the Sigma. A good sample will edge out the Nikon but for compactness and consistancy in sample performance, its the Nikon unless you are willing to go with manual focus. Then no question I would pick the Zeiss.

I also cherished a good sample of the 17-35 zoom and recall the thread a long time ago where we dicussed its strengths and weaknesses in detail.

I went through many samples to find a really good one.

20mm ia one of my favorite ultra wide focal lengths.

Dave (D&A).
 
Last edited:

stngoldberg

Well-known member
I bought the 17-35mm Nikon based on that thread a long time ago.
The thread maintained that the lens was very sharp at f8 through out the focal length range, and I have found that to be factual. It has become my go to lens when I shoot ultra wide on a SLR.
Stanley
 

JohnBrew

Active member
When I need a wide I always go for the Zeiss 21. See if you can find a discontinued all metal copy. The new series is bulkier and really doesn't look as nice, imo. I much prefer the tactile experience of the all metal lens and if my Otus is anything to go by, the new style focusing ring gets beat up rather easily.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Crap. Actually now thinking I should buy another 17-35...

Re the ZF option -- I like Zeiss lenses, and know the 21 is sharp, but never cottoned to its mustache distortion for anything with a horizon in it -- and most of my land and sea-scapes have horizons. Its distortion was the reason I went to the 18 instead. I did/do like the 18 focal, but with it realized I had become manual-focus-resistive and sold it when I got the 17-35...

The 20G is probably the best prime option, especially given the size quotient of the equation -- the ARTs lean toward massive on par with the 85/1.4G, and as such usually one of my current trio of them (24, 35, 50) gets left behind -- but I do love the way they render.

Otoh, if I bought another 17-35, I would probably sell off the 24 and possibly the 35 ART, which would almost cover the cost of the 17-35. And prevent me from bothering with a 20 prime for significant bag-space savings. Hmmm...

PS: With the 17-35 and its soft extreme corners for landscapes, one trick I learned was to shoot a tad loose -- like 2mm of focal zoom loose -- and crop afterward. An easy enough process with unnoticeable IQ loss at the D800/810 resolutions. Definitely now leaning toward another 17-35...
 

Y Sol

Active member
Jack, there is also a new Zeiss Milvus 18mm (not yet released)
It's a new optical design and I'm sure it will be a great lens.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Not going manual focus for this one, but thanks for the reminder.

Right now, it's between the 20/G and another 17-35. Leaning toward the 20G since it's smallish, has only slight barrel distortion and I prefer using good primes over zooms that require best practice thinking while using them. Plus its less than half the price of the 17-35...
 

JohnBrew

Active member
Jack, the Zeiss 21 distortion is easily handled in pp. The ACR lens correction works perfectly.
Yeah, but if you want AF fuhgeddaboutit.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Arc,

I saw that, and have revised my strategy to "wait and see" how this lens performs and of course its pricepoint. My guess is I will still end up with the 20G, simply due to price/size/performance formula. But a TS lens is one I'd make the manual focus exception for ;)
 

archivue

Active member
Make sure you can try the lens, the copy i've test wasn't good at all compare to the sigma !

The PC-E price tag is 3600$ :-(
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The problem with the Nikon 20mm is that it's a good lens, and if the were no competition, it would be an absolute no-brainer, but... when I compared it to the Zeiss, at least the copy that I had in my hand, there was no competition. With both lenses at f/2.8, the Zeiss showed more detail in the corners and along edges, had the "right" contrast and colour rendering and was generally a joy to use. So in the end, I bought the Zeiss, even if it was second hand, more expensive, heavier, manual focus and whatnot. The Zeiss also seemed to be to render people and objects near the edge of the frame more correctly, with less distortion, but that may have been a result of the enthusiasm of the moment :) I don't shoot much landscape and architecture though, so my opinion is coloured by that fact.

That of course doesn't mean that the Zeiss is the perfect lens for anybody, but it does mean that at least I would always feel with the Nikkor that I didn't buy the best lens.

But with the launch of the 19mm PC, what more is there to worry about? If the image quality is good, I doubt that there are better choices for landscapes and architecture around, at least as long as you have a Nikon body. No more worries, with the possible exception of where to find money for lunch the next couple of months ;)
 
Top