Nikon 20/24mm?

jimbo_wa

jimbo_wa

Messages
606
Name
James Cowell
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone got either of the two Nikon AF-D lenses as I'm thinking of getting one to replace a Tamron 17-35?

After using my 50mm 1.4 & 105 macro I prefer the 'rigidity' :thinking: of a prime lens and would like to get one of the above depending on the amount of distortion in the image.

Mostly to be used for wide interior shots.

Ta!
 
On a D700 the Tamron will outperform the 20mm for edge and corner sharpness quite comfortably.
 
Hi Andy - it was you that pointed me to the 17-35 and a great lens it is but, (isn't there always :LOL:) I just feel less choice (zooming!) makes me think more and therfore take better pics! :shake:
 
jimbo_wa said:
Hi Andy - it was you that pointed me to the 17-35 and a great lens it is but, (isn't there always :LOL:) I just feel less choice (zooming!) makes me think more and therfore take better pics! :shake:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I can't help as I have neither of these lenses but I know exactly what you mean in the above statement and is the reason I am switching to all primes in the very near future... I don't think sharpness is everything and agree that a tool to get the best out of you compositionally is far more important.
 
No-one using wide primes on Nikon kit then? :shrug:

Anyone wanting to give one away then... :naughty:
 
Zooms all the way here apart from my 50mm f/1.4
 
The problem is that in the range, the Nikon primes arn't that hot - the 14-24 obseletes all of them, and the 17-35 f/2.8 AF-S is a better performer than the 20mm, 24mm and 28mm as well (looking at edge performance on full frame)

If you want to get some primes, go manual focus and consider the Voightlander 20mm, or the 24 or 28mm AI-S versions.
 
They're pretty bad when compared to the alternatives (24mm at least), which is why no-one's using them I guess. Heavy CA and vignetting issues.
 
I highly recommend the sigma 24mm f/1.8, i recently switched from a 24-70 to a prime setup and am loving it. I would say the sigma is just as sharp as my 50 and 85 1.8
 
Blimey - I thought that the 24mm (at least) was supposed to be a very sharp lens, but I suppose that we are talking about designs that are 15 or more years old now with zoom tech moving on considerably in that time!

Are we all getting pickier as time goes on (always expecting more for less) or was film just more forgiving?
 
jimbo_wa said:
Blimey - I thought that the 24mm (at least) was supposed to be a very sharp lens, but I suppose that we are talking about designs that are 15 or more years old now with zoom tech moving on considerably in that time!

Are we all getting pickier as time goes on (always expecting more for less) or was film just more forgiving?
Click to expand...

Only just seen this thread - and I think you've hit the nail on the head.

I've got a 10-year old 24mm, used originally with my F100 (film) body. I really liked it at the time and was very useful for that extra width on interiors. Now, it's a compact little lens I tuck into my bag 'just in case' and it's the widest full frame lens I've got, so I reckon it earns its keep. But I might feel differently if I'd got a 24-70. :)

If you're moving to primes and the price is right - you might agree. I haven't tried any Sigmas,btw, so can't compare.
 
I have just bought a Sigma 20mm F1.8 off Wail, it's great. Taken a few pics on digital (more on the F80 and not yet processed). I think it is going to be one of those lenses that you have in your bag and get out for specific shots. Going away for a couple of days now so hopefully I will get chance for a play.
 
I have only taken it out once and was also trying out my D700 and F80 for the first time too so not many shots. This is one but not sure if it is a good example or not.

20mm800100.jpg


Taken at 200 ISO on the D700, f9, 1/125th sec, -1/3EV, overcast day, AP

Click here for Fullsize
 
Not much distortion so that's a bonus, but aren't they around £500?:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top