Save 15% On Excire Foto Software With Code: EXCIRE-EP

Nikkor 20mm AF-D v Sigma 20mm

I already have a Sigma 10-20 lens which I've used a lot for landscape shots but wondered whether I'd get much use from the Nikkor prime 20mm AF-D.

I really like the challenge of using a fixed focal lens and am usually really pleased with the images I get when using a 50mm 1.8 especially in low light. I'm looking at having a wider lens for similar low light shots, documentary style. Has anyone got this lens who would recommend it? Or possibly the prime 24mm lens which is slightly cheaper.

Also tempted by the 85mm f1.8 which I've pretty much decided to go for as although I have the 70-200 VR covering that focal point its a heavy lens to have with you all day.

Any comments and thoughts welcome...
cameracat 17 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
1 Jul 2009 11:53PM
When you tot up the prices for several decent primes, The total makes looking at something like the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 not such a bad idea, Especially as the 24 - 70 outperforms most if not all the primes within its focal range.
fauxtography 16 6.6k 36
1 Jul 2009 11:59PM
I'm not on Nikon, but I have the canon 20mm 2.8, which on the crop 30D works similar to a 35mm lens on a full frame camera. This is a great focal length (bridging wide and normal) as it is very versatile, especially if you are interested in street work or documentary.

Oh and an 85mm 1.8 get it, a great combo to have.
fauxtography 16 6.6k 36
2 Jul 2009 12:00AM

Quote:Especially as the 24 - 70 outperforms most if not all the primes within its focal range.

20mm and 85mm are not in its focal range Wink
peterjones 19 5.2k 1 United Kingdom
2 Jul 2009 8:58AM

Quote:20mm and 85mm are not in its focal range

One step forward or back should do it Smile
dandeakin 14 209 3 England
2 Jul 2009 12:30PM
I've been using a sigma 20mm f1.8 for a while now and it's one of my favorite lens. Its sharper than either my 18-70mm Nikon or 10-20mm Sigma at 20mm, at any equivalent aperture. At f5.6 it's particularly impressive.

The f1.8 is very very useful both in darkness and in getting very limited depth of field (despite being wide angle).I use it alot for portraits for this reason. And it's a 9 bladed aperture so the out of focus background looks decent.

I've always found 50mm and 85mm focal lengths of limited use in low light simply because you need a fairly quick shutter speed to cope with the focal length. At 20mm you can hand hold at 1/20s easily and combined with f1.8 makes this a very low light lens.

I would definetely recommend it.
dandeakin 14 209 3 England
2 Jul 2009 1:25PM
On seconds thoughts though, if f2.8 is quick enough why not sell your sigma 10-20mm and get a tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (439). You'd get landscape and fast/lowlight for not much money once you'd sold the sigma 10-20mm. And you'd have one less lens to carry around.

I got the Sigma 20mm 1.8 for 290 in December which is why i didn't do this. Its now 410 which makes the tokina price look pretty good.

The Nikon 20mm 2.8 is 392 - i'd get a Sigma 20mm 1.8 or Tokina 11-16mm.
Thanks for your help on this. Dan, great portfolio of images.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.