Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
By wide-angle, I mean sub-35mm.
I'm moving over to all primes for anything below 100mm but the w/a end is leaving me a bit baffled. The reviews for the 20mm 2.8, 24mm 2.8 and 28mm 2.8 seem mixed to say the least and whilst I will be doing a test drive at my local friendly Calumet, I thought I'd ask if anyone out there had some hands-on experience. The 24mm 1.4 seems a good bet and if the 24-120 f/4 I'm selling on a well know auction site gets a good price (2 hours to go hint hint) I might stretch to that though I'd be more than happy with the 2.8 IF it is up to snuff.
Zeiss might be an option but obviously I'd rather avoid that sort of money if I can
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
The 20mm is superb Barrie, at least stopped down, not had need to try it wide open. What didn't you like abt 24-120 btw (I have that too but the jury's still out).
I recently bought a second hand 20mm 2.8 and although I've only used it on a recent trip to Marrakech I'm really pleased with the results. Nice and sharp with good results in low light, there's 3 shots on my portfolio if you want to check them out.
Quote: The 20mm is superb Barrie, at least stopped down, not had need to try it wide open. What didn't you like abt 24-120 btw (I have that too but the jury's still out).
I'd be using it stopped down too Nick so thanks for that. Nothing wrong at all with the 24-120. I like it a lot actually. I bought it for some trips abroad (I've 6 trips abroad this year - 4 down 2 to go! ) and the 24-70 was getting a bit tiring . Too close to the 24-70 to kep long term though so I thought I'd seel it whilst it was fairly new
Quote: I recently bought a second hand 20mm 2.8 and although I've only used it on a recent trip to Marrakech I'm really pleased with the results. Nice and sharp with good results in low light, there's 3 shots on my portfolio if you want to check them out
Thanks Darren - appreciated. Going to have a look
I'm actually a Canon user, but reviewed Nikon fit copies of the Zeiss 21mm & Voigtlander 20mm a little while back. The Voigtlander's one worth considering if you can't justify spending the extra on the Zeiss; a really good lens for the money. Have to say, though, the Zeiss is in a class of its own...
Agree about the Zeiss.. but I'm not entirely sure I can justify that much
Got a 20 /2.8 Nikkor, the manual one of course . you find those for reasonable money on ebay and I'd never sell mine, it is too good. I have also recently re-tried my very old 28mm 3.5 and I still think it is fantastic.
I bet you can get something like that in Canon!
Thanks Annette.. why would I want a Canon?
Barry, I use manual-focus Nikon 20mm f3.5 plus the 24mm and 35mm f2 for personal work and they aseem as good as any modern "professional zoom". The great advantage is that they're small and light with 52mm filter thread rather than 77mm.
When working, the 17-35 does much the same job and doesn't involve changing lenses with the associated ingress of muck, so I play lazy.
My only experience of Zeiss is the 100mm Makro-Planar which is used for 90% of my portraiture. If the wide-angles are as good, their performance will blow the Nikon lenses out of the water. If they weren't good and basically worth the price, the word would have got round long ago.
But as you know, it's about value for money too. I am sure they are extremely good and I would rather buy them for quality but they do not make good commercial sense for me
Quote: will blow the Nikon lenses out of the water
Don't know about you, But I rarely float my lenses, Guess you'd need a Canon if your into watersports.....
Another vote for the 20mm f/2.8 Nikkor.....
Quote: Don't know about you, But I rarely float my lenses, Guess you'd need a Canon if your into watersports....
The manual 24mm had a floating rear element (Nikon called it CRC - close-range correction, and I'm sure some modern lenses have it too, without checking).
Do you want AF or manual? The 20 f/2.8 AF is brilliant, the 24 f/2.8 lags only by a little, and the 28 f/2.8 is not as sharp into the corners, but on a DX sensor you will be pushed to notice it. The manual 20 f/3.5 is magic and tiny, the f/2.8 version is better but bigger. The 24 f/2.8 is good too, and the 28 f/2 and f/3.5 are better than the f/2.8 version.
Generally, the lenses with wider max apertures are better corrected, especially in the centre of the frame, but most are more than good enough across a whole 35mm frame.
Price wise, you pay a premium for the wider apertures, so unless you can justify it, I'd stick to the f/2.8s.
Galen Rowell, the landscape photographer, chose the modest aperture Nikon wide angles because he found they gave better results.
I've got a metal-bodied 24mm 2.8 nikkor AI-S that's a little beauty. It quickly replaced my nifty fifty as my compact walk-around of choice for DX. Stopped down, it's as sharp on a cropped sensor as the 17-55 2.8 at the same focal length.
Can't comment on its edge performance for your D3s though Barrie, although it's fine on a sheet of 8x10 from the FM2.
Thanks everybody.. real world experience is always more relevant to 'professional' reviews imo
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Are you a Nikon owner? Check out Nikon Nation to find the latest Nikon news, reviews, discussion and photos on ePHOTOzine.
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar