DSLRUsers.com

I just purchased a second hand Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF-D.

With the move to a full frame camera (Nikon D600) I essentially lost all my wide angle lenses so I've been looking for some new wide angle lenses to add to my kit.

The 20/2.8D is an old school Nikon prime lens sporting an aperture ring and none of the modern goodies like AF-S ultrasonic focus motor or nano crystal coating and it's optics date back to the original AIS design from 1984. This latest version is however still in production and is a very light (270g) and tiny (69mm diamater and only 42.5mm long) lens. On a full frame camera it provides an ultra wide 94 degree angle of view (you'd need to be using something like a 13mm lens on a DX camera for a similar field of view).

I am still intending on purchasing something like the new 16-35/4 (or 17-35/2.8 ) (both of which are sharper, have less chroma, less vignetting, are wider and longer and better in most ways) for my normal landscape and indoor work but I wanted something small and light to just put on the camera or chuck in the bag when I didn't want to lug the huge zoom or (in the case of the 16-35) need an extra stop of light (e.g. for stars at night).

Here are a couple first shots with the lens (soon after I bought it)...

Roots


A quick portrait with my youngest - my what big feet you have


Wide open - you can't see it here but at 100% crop the bokeh (what little you get at 20mm) is fairly nervous and even a little donuty


and a little Trey Ratcliff moment (sorry had to try it...) - this is a blend of two exposures (0EV and -3EV)

That 1st one is superb. Seems more distortion than I expected looking at your little girls shoe.

It's a no brainer though given its cheap, small and light.

mmm... yes well all I can suggest is time for the 16-35

Congrats on the acquisition. I looked at this lens before I settled on the Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II that I own (I fell in love with the look, feel and handling of this lens). These are great images...although I almost lost my afternoon tea when I saw the last image.

I have one of those lenses. They are capable of superb results if you take care and use immacualte technique. Work from a tripod and square the camera up, use a cable release and you will be well rewarded. They seem to sing best at 5.6 or F8...but then many lenses do.
Enjoy.

Rooz wrote:That 1st one is superb. Seems more distortion than I expected looking at your little girls shoe. It's a no brainer though given its cheap, small and light.

Thanks Chris - I don't really know what distortion is normal with these (this was after the LR auto lens correction - although that seems to mostly fix the middle of the image) - the rest of her looks OK but yes her foot does elongate towards the corner (I was very close to her tho)

Mj wrote:mmm... yes well all I can suggest is time for the 16-35

I know - I'll try and pick one up this week

aim54x wrote:Congrats on the acquisition. I looked at this lens before I settled on the Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II that I own (I fell in love with the look, feel and handling of this lens). These are great images...although I almost lost my afternoon tea when I saw the last image.

Come on Cam - deep down inside you know you love a little HDR action

I paid $300 for mine - unsure if that was a good price or not?

Matt. K wrote:I have one of those lenses. They are capable of superb results if you take care and use immacualte technique. Work from a tripod and square the camera up, use a cable release and you will be well rewarded. They seem to sing best at 5.6 or F8...but then many lenses do. Enjoy.

Thanks Matt

As I wrote somewhere else about the 28mm - this lens (20mm) is much better than the 28mm f2.8 (which i have) which in my opinion is pretty un-stellar, i have tried the 20mm f2.8 and found it to have ordinary bokeh and contrast akin to the 28mm which is pretty shit to be honest.

i think your description of nervous donut bokeh sums it up nicely.

The advantages of this lens however is its compact size and....well that was the only real benefit I noticed.

The second image shows a fair amount of distortion which is something I did not expect of that lens on full frame.

biggerry wrote:I have tried the 20mm f2.8 and found it to have ordinary bokeh and contrast akin to the 28mm which is pretty shit to be honest. i think your description of nervous donut bokeh sums it up nicely.

Yep - although to be honest I'm unlikely to care much about the bokeh on a UWA - even at 2.8 the background doesn't really blur. I'm going to try some street with it and see how it fares.

The second image shows a fair amount of distortion which is something I did not expect of that lens on full frame.

Yeah - I'll have to do some more testing with that

Remorhaz wrote:

aim54x wrote:Congrats on the acquisition. I looked at this lens before I settled on the Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II that I own (I fell in love with the look, feel and handling of this lens). These are great images...although I almost lost my afternoon tea when I saw the last image.

Come on Cam - deep down inside you know you love a little HDR action

I paid $300 for mine - unsure if that was a good price or not?

I;m guessing you either picked up the 20mm as an import/grey or 2nd hand. Regardless it is a good price. As for HDR....I'm all for subtle, realistic HDR.....

I like the first - awesome shot.

I picked up a second hand version a number of years ago. Great little lens, although I found it had greater distortion than the 17-35 at 20.