NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Mongo on July 10, 2018, 11:49:09
-
Mongo will soon be going to the Cape country (a remote area of Australia) for his next brief holiday. He is keen to use a very good wide angle lens but must be extremely light and compact. Mongo has a well used but near mint 20mm f3.5 AI manual lens which he has used happily for many years and which is now approximately 40 years old.
Many considerations went through Mongo’s little brain. Such a trip warrants an excellent lens….investigate and buy a better, more modern lens…where to start….perhaps a wide zoom…..another 20mm or wider (say 12mm to 15mm)….maybe 24mm will be a great all rounder etc etc.
After many short circuits in his head from having considered all the alternatives, Mongo decided to simply replace the 20mm with a new 20mm due to many factors including IQ, weight & size etc. The obvious choice was the nikon 20mm f1.8. Not really interested in the fancier exotics lenses for this purpose.
Went to more closely look and try the new 20mm with intention of buying it and bringing it home and getting to know it better before the big trip……..BUT this was not to be.
After looking at some test shots of Mongo’s 20mm f3.5 AI and the new 20mm f1.8, in Mongo’s opinion, there was just not enough positive difference to warrant even this relatively small change of equipment. To be fair, if Mongo was a first time buyer of a wide angle lens, he would have bought the 20mm f1.8.
20mm f3.5 AI - small, light, good IQ (even in corners stopped down), has scale for hyper-focal distance settings, easy 52mm filters. Cons……colour not as saturated, sharpness 8/10, manual focus only.
20mm f1.8 - great IQ/sharpness 9/10 (even in corners stopped down), good AF, great colour. Cons…2.5 times larger & 1/3 heavier (but still very portable), no real hyper-focal scale, large 72mm filters
Some parameters/qualifications:- Mongo only uses the 20mm for landscapes (usually f8 or f11) and some astral images. Often, Mongo just sets the camera settings and shoots in any direction without even looking through the view finder. So, a lot of the bells and whistles of the new lens do not directly mean much in these circumstances (except , perhaps speed for astro work). However, a wise person once said that a picture is worth a thousand words. So, here are two images - one from each lens at identical settings.
The AI lens was focused to the target instead of hyper-focal distance just to equate to the AF lens focusing to the same target point (being the “Paris Miki” sign).
Apologies for the lousy image choice but these were taken in a hurry in a busy shopping mall outside the door of the camera shop. They are tilted because Mongo held the side of the D810 body firmly up against a concrete pillar to steady the shot. The shots are labelled AI and AF to distinguish the lenses used. First, the whole image of each and secondly, a 100% crop of each. Shot in full frame RAW with no processing at all except conversion to Tiff and then to JPEG and reduced in size for posting. ISO 400, 1/15th, f8, manual exposure mode.
The AF lens is slightly sharper in places and has more contrast/saturated colour. The contrast/colour saturation are easily fixed in a couple of clicks of a button. Also noticed the AF image was slightly darker than the AI at the same settings.
This post is offered as food for thought. Certainly, it surprised Mongo. Many of you may still change lenses in the same circumstances. Whatever the outcome of your views, when members come across stuff like this, it would seem interesting (and perhaps) useful to share it. Perhaps some of you have had similar experiences or have a view about this post. Thoughts…..??
-
Dear Mongo,
Thank you for sharing your insights.
Probably all of us have had similar experiences with various lenses and focal lenghts.
My personal debates were with the 180/2.8 AiS and AF versions, or 85/1.4 AFD vs AFS versions. In both cases the older model prevailed, or i simply saw no need for an upgrade.
So, I understand that you didn't upgrade. However, I am biased to the 20/1.8 because I believe that it is a stunning performer and I use it regularly.
-
1/15 is too slow to do this test at for comparison. Just because you get one shot off that is ok with the Ai doesn't mean you can pull that off again and again ;) So please redo in propper light with both lenses :) Thanks!
The Ai is for sure a nice sharp and compact lens, however the the new 20mm 1.8 G is by far sharper in the corners. Also the new lens is very good in the corners even wide open, so no issues at all stopped down.
-
What about sunsets?
I have the 20mm - f/2.8 but yearn for an f/3.5.
-
I have owned and used 20/1.8G and have no complaint, so far as the image quality is concerned. I regrettably parted with it simply because it was too big and obtrusive (especially with its petal hood attached) when I used in confined places. Ai 20/4.0 that I also had was much more preferable in terms of its handling, but the image quality was not comparable to 20/1.8G, and it was too slow for the more general use. If you mostly use it stopped down to f8.0 or further, Shame that I haven't met evan a decent Ais or AF 20/2.8... Oh, well...
-
I bought a used 20mm 1.8G last week. I already had 20mm f/3.5 AI and 20mm UD.
I can confirm Mongo’s observations about it being slightly darker than the other two lenses.
The UD in comparison to the others has a slightly warmer cast.
The AI is best into the sun with almost no ghosting. UD is worst. G has a form of rainbow ghosting which is minimal but still there.
I have to agree that for daylight shooting the AI and the G are both acceptable and am slightly disappointed that there is not a larger difference between them.
For Interiors I do like the G due to faster aperture. It does seem to have a bit of barrel distortion compared to the 18mm AI or the 15mm AI, but have not had a chance to compare to the other 20mm lenses.
I think it is weird that I have 3 20mm lenses, but a lot of my work is architecture and interiors so it is a useful focal length. I am considering selling one of them off, but it would be the UD which goes on the block, and it is slouch a beautiful piece of machinery and the golden tones it produces can be rather attractive in the right circumstances.
-
You got a good copy of the 20/3.5.
I agree with Eric that your comparison test is touch sketchy...understandable since it wasn't planned.
Were both shots manually focused using magnified live view? Because...if the AF lens was focused using AF, then you are now testing the AF system of the camera and lens combined, not just the lens.
If the max aperture of the f/3.5 is acceptable for your trip, the advantage of being able to quickly slam the focus to infinity and get a shot is not to be sneezed at. The AF lens will enslave you to looking through the finder and operating the AF system to get [quick]focus---even infinity focus--- something the the Ai lens would allow you to do by feel alone. Of course, if you have the time to spare, viewfinder eye focus is an option with the AF lens.
-
Hi Mongo, Years ago, I bought a Nikon 20 AF new with my 8008s camera. Have tried many other 20s and even Leica 21 Super Angulon-R converted to Nikon mount. I always end up going back to the 20 AF. It is small, light and the others just don't do enough to change. I also have the UD and like it when I want 'character' but the 20 AF is usually the one in my bag.
Pete
-
Some of you have had the 20mm f1.8 and parted with it for reasons that Mongo is resisting wanting to buy it. Others have it and confirm it is a stellar performer. Others wish they had the 20mm f3.5. Others confirm the different virtues of all the 20mm lenses. Pete, Mongo assumes your AF was the f2.8 version
Mongo agrees with the comments made by Erik and Pluton in relation to the limited testing method and therefore the results of those tests. May have to borrow the 20mm f1.8 from a friend who has just bought one if Mongo is to do further testing.
The overall impression gained , thanks to all your contributions is that Mongo will probably be OK using the AI lens for his purpose but that the G lens will be a little better and never disappoint. Maybe some quick further testing will help decide this as far as IQ etc. However, such tests will not really give a good idea of what it will be like to travel with this lens and having to find new filters for it etc. It really is a close call between IQ, speed and most of all, CONVENIENCE.
A big thanks for all your helpful comments.
-
If you mostly use it stopped down to f8.0 or further,
Ooops, I failed to complete the sentence. I just wanted to say that if you mostly use it stopped down to F8.0 or further, your current Ai 20/3.5 would be good enough. Indeed it is too slow for the astro-photography, but it should work well enough for the star trails.
-
Mongo, yes mine is the 20 2.8 AF, pre-AFD but the glass is the same. I used the 20 1.8 also and it was way bigger and heaver. The extra aperture is good for astro-photography but 2.8 is good for most everything else. I remember when I first bought the 20 AF new how big it was compared to my other lenses. Now I look at how small it is... I travel a lot so size is important as to what fits in my camera bags.
-
Quite agree with you Akira. However, even though too slow for astrology work, Mongo has managed quite reasonable (but not great) astro images on a very good , clear, bright sky night. Mongo has a 35mm f1.4 Art series Sigma which is a truly great lens. Although wider than he would like, it may have to do for some of the astro work. It is almost impossible to have a lens for so many different purposes without crowding yourself out of your home with equipment - and some you only use once a year, if that. Once upon a time really good photographers seem to make do with a 35 or 50 mm lens for 80% of their work. Where have those days gone...?
Pete thanks for the additional information.
-
Quite agree with you Akira. However, even though too slow for astrology work, Mongo has managed quite reasonable (but not great) astro images on a very good , clear, bright sky night. Mongo has a 35mm f1.4 Art series Sigma which is a truly great lens. Although wider than he would like, it may have to do for some of the astro work. It is almost impossible to have a lens for so many different purposes without crowding yourself out of your home with equipment - and some you only use once a year, if that. Once upon a time really good photographers seem to make do with a 35 or 50 mm lens for 80% of their work. Where have those days gone...?
Mongo, I would envy you that you have the access to the places free from light pollution...
I'm nowhere near those really good photographers you mention, but probably more than 90% of my images have been made with 50mm (or its equivalent) lenses. I'm that lazy. ::)
-
Mongo, I would envy you that you have the access to the places free from light pollution...
I'm nowhere near those really good photographers you mention, but probably more than 90% of my images have been made with 50mm (or its equivalent) lenses. I'm that lazy. ::)
I think 90% of my photos have been made with a lens shorter than 50mm. Also lazy, but in tight spaces.
-
Akira and Jack. You both plead guilty to laziness but the jury is thinking that the real reason may be that you are probably that good that you can achieve it without changing lenses. There is no reprieve, amnesty or parol for Mongo .....he IS just guilty of being plain lazy !
-
You just need a better lawyer, Mongo ;D
There is something about keeping things simple that is very agreeable. It is as though it helps the equipment to get out of the way and let the photographer see. Experience is telling me that all I need is a 35mm and something in the 85-105mm range. Wider and longer can be fun and useful. However, as long as I have those two lenses I am quite content.
-
my short comment:
1. small size, light weight and being used to operating even without looking through the VF in hyper focal manner are very good arguments for the 3.5Ai
2. I sold my 1.4/24G after acquiring the 1.8/20G. That says a lot. The 1.4/24G was a lens I bought in 2011 and loved it very much. 2000€ initially were a pain but worth every cent. Very heavy lens. The 1.8/20G has the same IQ in my book, a little less magic wide open and it is just the critical amount wider that comes in handy in many situations. Highly recommended! Give it another try and take your time.
PS: the performance in the near field is stunning too.
-
Quite agree with you Akira. However, even though too slow for astrology work, Mongo has managed quite reasonable (but not great) astro images on a very good , clear, bright sky night. Mongo has a 35mm f1.4 Art series Sigma which is a truly great lens. Although wider than he would like, it may have to do for some of the astro work. It is almost impossible to have a lens for so many different purposes without crowding yourself out of your home with equipment - and some you only use once a year, if that. Once upon a time really good photographers seem to make do with a 35 or 50 mm lens for 80% of their work. Where have those days gone...?
Pete thanks for the additional information.
One of our members managed to shoot all of his professional and private shots for one year with one lens: 85mm
-
I often use the 20/1.8 for indoor images, architecture as well as events. I find it to have the best autofocus of those Nikon wide angles I've used, so focusing is easy and reliable even wide open. This is in contrast to 14-24 which is excellent but sometimes its AF misses. I often include people in my images of interiors and focusing on the people is important when shooting at full aperture. Then I can also freeze the movement. I never liked blurry cloud people in sharp surroundings style of interior image.
The 20/1.8 is contrasty and very resistsnt to flare and ghosting. I think the darker appearance is simply due to the high contrast. The bokeh is ok but in that respect, I prefer the 24/1.4 AF-S. Also the 24/1.4 has a more "delightful/playful" character to the images whereas the 20/1.8 is more factual. The autofocusing of the 24/1.4 is less certain than with the 20/1.8 and care must be taken. Sometimes at events I find I need the extra light of the f/1.4 to get nice tonality and less noise, in dim spaces.
IMO the 20/1.8 Nikkor is a great lens.
-
My advice is buy the AF-S 20/1.8G ED but definitely keep the 20/3.5 AI. I bought the AF-S f/1.8 due to problems I had focusing my 20/2.8 AIS at mid distance in modestly poor light on my D800. I had to focused using live view hand held where I could not use a tripod.
The AF-S 20/1.8 beats the AI 20/3.5 is almost any way but not when pointed into the sun or sometimes just clouds with the sun behind. The AI f/3.5 is wonderfully free of flare and ghost even with the sun included in the frame and gives fine sun stars at f/11 and f/16. I don't find the weight of the AF-S 20/1.8 a problem but the size is not an advantage.
Anyway my advice is buy the AF-S 20/1.8G ED but keep the 20/3.5 AI for harsh, into the sun shooting.
Best,
Dave Hartman
-
Ever considered the Sigma 20/1.4 ?
I own the 24/1.4 and like it a lot (more than the 35/1.4)
-
Ever considered the Sigma 20/1.4 ?
Too heavy for me. I want high quality lenses but ideally of such weight that the total weight of all the lenses I need to shoot an event or trip is reasonable.
I have a few lenses that are grossly overweight and try to avoid further purchases along those lines where possible.
-
Too heavy for me. I want high quality lenses but ideally of such weight that the total weight of all the lenses I need to shoot an event or trip is reasonable.
I have a few lenses that are grossly overweight and try to avoid further purchases along those lines where possible.
that is one of the reasons I parted with the 1.4/24G. A whole day shooting it at events, needing the extra fps OR battery capacity to power me through the day with a grip and ugly downlights with a necessity to use one or two speedlights.
In the end my arms always felt like a big ape's arms hanging to the floor and no consecutive day to be considered.
The 1.8/20G is big but light and the performance is less magic and more sober, but ... that is often what I want and what my customers want too.
PS: Same (weight) reasoning goes for 1.4/105E compared to 1.8/85G. But: in this case both are magic in their own right.
-
Ian - thanks…there is a lot of sense in what you say. Mongo unfortunately needs a long lens fir birding. However, for general photography, what you say is right.
Frank and Ilkka - thanks for there the real background info on the 20mm f1.8 and other experiences you have had with possible other alternatives.
David, Mongo also appreciates your knowledge and experience of both lenses but to keep both may defeat the purpose of keeping things light, small and transportable.
Airy - thank you for the advice. Mongo has considered all options including Sigma offerings and zooms. The 24 f1.4 is too heavy and bulky as are all the other wide angle offerings. From what Mongo has read, if he were to buy the 24mm, it would be the f1.8 version. In any event , the 20mm is, so far, better for the purpose if Mongo is to buy any substitute lens for his current 20mm f3.5
-
I've used AF-S 24/1.8, and it performed even a bit better than the already highly regarded 20/1.8G. If the size is acceptable, I would recommend it highly.
Sorry for offering too many options! Choices, choices! :D
-
I've used AF-S 24/1.8, and it performed even a bit better than the already highly regarded 20/1.8G. If the size is acceptable, I would recommend it highly.
Sorry for offering too many options! Choices, choices! :D
No apologies please Akira - all information and advice is always gratefully accepted. Your have also now confirmed Mongo's understanding of the 24mm f1.8 if it were to come into consideration. Thanks again.
-
Though I say the 20mm f/3.5 AI is good, chances are I’ll only carry it when I intend not to need it. When I really want a 20mm I’ll bring the 1.8. Still figuring out what to do about the 20mm UD. It is such a beautiful piece of metal and glass...
-
Note: the AFS 20/1.8 has 77mm filter (not 72mm as stated in your first post). The AFS 24/1.8 has 72mm filter so a bit smaller. Apart from that, the two lenses are almost identical size and weight. See http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#20
Many photographers find 24mm as the goldilocks of wide-angles - wide enough for that "wide" look, but not too wide - just right. But everyone is different. The choice might depend on what other lenses you regularly use...
-
Jack if you kept the two lenses , you would really need to know which one to take out with you on the day. That is not always possible to know in advance. Taking two in not the best option.
Roland, thanks for the correction but either 72mm or 77mm would be still a hassle to have to find and buy filters etc. Already have all the stuff for the 52mm f3.5. Would only be viable to do all this if the 20mm f1.8 was a compelling “have to buy” lens over the one Mongo already has. Not sure Mongo is there yet.
As far as the 20mm v 24mm, as you say they are both about the same weight, size and probably IQ. When you think that Mongo was once using a 14mm rectilinear lens and the 20mm, it is not hard to see that the 20mm is probably as narrow as Mongo will go. Also, you can always crop to 24mm or less if you need to. BTW, the 14mm died a couple of years ago and was never replaced becuase, like the 20mm, neither were being used enough. It seems very long periods between uses for these lenses. If not for the upcoming rare and remote area trip, Mongo would not be having this discussion.
-
one more aspect: I always carry two bodies except for recreational / meditative camera use. The 20/1.8G is one of the lenses I love on the D500 as well as on the D850.
Only not for group shots indoors where I prefer the 15fish of the 8-15mm zoom, because faces in the corners do not bent like they are with the 20mm rectangular. The fishzoom is a fantastic versatile lens. It grows to my heart the more I use it. It is small but relatively heavy.
-
Note: the AFS 20/1.8 has 77mm filter (not 72mm as stated in your first post). The AFS 24/1.8 has 72mm filter so a bit smaller. Apart from that, the two lenses are almost identical size and weight. See http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#20
Many photographers find 24mm as the goldilocks of wide-angles - wide enough for that "wide" look, but not too wide - just right. But everyone is different. The choice might depend on what other lenses you regularly use...
Agree with Roland. Both 20/1.8G and 24/1.8G are practically identical in size, especially the dedicated petal-shaped hoods are put on.
-
Roland, thanks for the correction but either 72mm or 77mm would be still a hassle to have to find and buy filters etc. Already have all the stuff for the 52mm f3.5. Would only be viable to do all this if the 20mm f1.8 was a compelling “have to buy” lens over the one Mongo already has. Not sure Mongo is there yet.
Which filters do you use? I use filters much less than when I shot film, so filter size is less important (although it is still nice to have a consistent size among lenses). Colour correction filters are not needed due to camera white-balance. I rarely use a polariser any more, it doesn't seem to work as well on digital, often resulting in loss of contrast that never happened in film.
If you do use filters, the 77mm filter size of the 20/1.8 is the same as many others including several wide zooms, the 85/1.4, 70-200/2.8 and 300/4, so it might be a useful size to have??
If you really want a more compact wide angle with better quality than the AI 20/3.5, the only other options are Leica, or Sony with the Loxia 21/2.8 but that's a lot of cash... :o
-
Thanks Roland. First, Mongo agrees with you re the polariser. It does not work at all well on digital - a lot of undesirable effects. The more exotic brands of wide angle are also not on Mongo's list for reasons of price and mostly, the relatively performance for the price. You are better off with he 20mm f1.8 Nikon in most casses.
In terms of filters, Mongo uses a graduated filter and full on neutral density filter, a good quality UV for protection (despite what others say about this). Lastly, Mongo has a small stack of great coloured graduated filters in the French "Cromofilter" brand. All filters Mongo has for this f3.5 lens are of course, 52mm size and take up very little space. You can imagine how difficult and expensive it would be to even try and find equivalents in an equally good brand for all of these in 77mm. The more Mongo thinks about this, the more he is inclined to stick with the f3.5 for now.
-
every decision will be a better decision now because it is a more informed decision
-
every decision will be a better decision now because it is a more informed decision
Absolutely for sure Frank. Thanks to everyone giving whatever information , experience and views they have about this, the decision will be as well informed as it can be. One last thing Mongo will do is see his friend and ask to use his newly acquired 20mm f1.8 for a day on one of our usual outings and see if that makes any difference to the current position Mongo has reached.
Again, sincere thanks to all for their useful comments
-
One more lens that hasn't been mentioned: the Cosina-Voigtlander 20mm 3.5 Skopar. It's equally small as the AI 20/3.5, accepting 52mm filters. It is a newer design and has an aspherical lens. I haven't seen any reviews which directly compare it to the older Nikkor, reviews generally show good central sharpness but weaker corners, which seems rather similar to the Nikkor. This discussion at dpreview (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3668056) has mixed opinions about the Skopar, I can only guess the discussion members have different expectations and ways of using this lens, with a fair dose of sample variation thrown in... :o. Just thought I'd mention this lens for completeness, for the price the AFS 20/1.8 seems a better option.
-
Ken Rockwell did a 20mm comparison that includes the various old Nikkors and the Skopar. He singles out corner performance, which is certainly not the sole criterion, but that's interesting nonetheless.
-
I looked into the 20/3.5 Skopar, but discarded the idea after seeing the review by LensTip.com:
https://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=274
Apparently the image quality struggles at the corners, and moustache distortion is fairly obvious.
-
Thanks again for the added advice.
Well, the unthinkable has happened. One of our members chanced into a camera shop 4000 kilometres away across Australia and saw a great looking used 20mm f1.8. He was kind enough to send Mongo a PM about this. Mongo contacted the store this morning and purchased what appears to be a near mint copy of the lens for a ridiculously low price. Used copies in Australia are almost non-existent. For that amount and condition, it was a no brainer - just bought it and now have the option of going either way after a good opportunity to assess it. It should arrive in 2 days.
A very sincere thanks for all your advice and input with this decision.
No one could have predicted what happened in the last 24 hours.
-
Mongo has been very lucky!
An example of the wonders of the internet and the generosity of the members here to look out for each other, in this case literally!
-
Thanks again for the added advice.
Well, the unthinkable has happened. One of our members chanced into a camera shop 4000 kilometres away across Australia and saw a great looking used 20mm f1.8. He was kind enough to send Mongo a PM about this. Mongo contacted the store this morning and purchased what appears to be a near mint copy of the lens for a ridiculously low price. Used copies in Australia are almost non-existent. For that amount and condition, it was a no brainer - just bought it and now have the option of going either way after a good opportunity to assess it. It should arrive in 2 days.
A very sincere thanks for all your advice and input with this decision.
No one could have predicted what happened in the last 24 hours.
Good luck with it! Will be good to hear if it meets expectations or exceeds them.
-
Mongo has been very lucky!
An example of the wonders of the internet and the generosity of the members here to look out for each other, in this case literally!
Absolutely Seapy ! Not so much luck as the generosity of members to help each others as this thread had demonstrated. So many of you helped by giving whatever knowledge and experience you could. Mongo is most grateful.
-
At least this enables Mongo to keep both versions.
While there is more to photography than Sunsets, to have an exceptional Sunset capable lens in Mongo's bag must be a great asset.
-
Good luck with it! Will be good to hear if it meets expectations or exceeds them.
Thanks Jack. From all indications given by the various members about this lens (including your good self), it will not doubt, not disappoint. Admittedly, despite what Mongo thought about the impracticability of having both lenses, he now thinks if you end up with both through fortuitous circumstances, it gives you some real choice and you need not take both out with you if you know (in advance) what sort of shooting you have in mind e.g the f1.8 for astro work, the f3.5 if shooting into the sun and for scenes requiring a 10 stop ND or other filters etc.
-
Thanks Jack. From all indications given by the various members about this lens (including your good self), it will not doubt, not disappoint. Admittedly, despite what Mongo thought about the impracticability of having both lenses, he now thinks if you end up with both through fortuitous circumstances, it gives you some real choice and you need not take both out with you if you know (in advance) what sort of shooting you have in mind e.g the f1.8 for astro work, the f3.5 if shooting into the sun and for scenes requiring a 10 stop ND or other filters etc.
I tried it out with a polarizing filter and it worked pretty well.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1787/43408765922_49338d8ec5_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/298TgLE)807_2409 (https://flic.kr/p/298TgLE)
Here is the worst with polarizer and the sun:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/915/43408766062_b65c2646bf_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/298TgP5)807_2398 (https://flic.kr/p/298TgP5)
Mostly it is much better behaved.
-
From all indications given by the various members about this lens, it will not doubt, not disappoint. Admittedly, despite what Mongo thought about the impracticability of having both lenses, he now thinks if you end up with both through fortuitous circumstances, it gives you some real choice
I am looking forward to your thoughts after you have had the chance to compare them.
-
Thanks again for the added advice.
Well, the unthinkable has happened. One of our members chanced into a camera shop 4000 kilometres away across Australia and saw a great looking used 20mm f1.8. He was kind enough to send Mongo a PM about this. Mongo contacted the store this morning and purchased what appears to be a near mint copy of the lens for a ridiculously low price. Used copies in Australia are almost non-existent. For that amount and condition, it was a no brainer - just bought it and now have the option of going either way after a good opportunity to assess it. It should arrive in 2 days.
A very sincere thanks for all your advice and input with this decision.
No one could have predicted what happened in the last 24 hours.
let it check at NPS for decentering. After some experience with used and even with new glass and centering issues for me this has become standard procedure
-
Jack, have not had good results with polarisers on digital but will try it on this 20mm f1.8 in case things have changed.
Ian, may give some views about this lens after a good trial period
Frank, have a lot of new and used gear. Only buy pristine used gear. Must say, have never had a problem with used gear but have had a lot of trouble with new gear. Will see how this lens looks and performs. If any doubt, can send it back or have Nikon look at it. Mongo assumes "NPS" is nikon ??
-
Jack, have not had good results with polarisers on digital but will try it on this 20mm f1.8 in case things have changed.
Ian, may give some views about this lens after a good trial period
Frank, have a lot of new and used gear. Only buy pristine used gear. Must say, have never had a problem with used gear but have had a lot of trouble with new gear. Will see how this lens looks and performs. If any doubt, can send it back or have Nikon look at it. Mongo assumes "NPS" is nikon ??
Hmm...my humble understanding is that PL doesn't work evenly on the lenses whose focal lengths are 24mm and wider.
NPS stands for Nikon Professional Service. My rate of grabbing factory defect samples are fairly high. :'( So, I always have my newly purchased lenses to check at Nikon. The correctly assembled and/or adjusted AF-S lenses don't need the AF fine tune function in the camera.
-
Mongo,
I think you will enjoy the lens, you may remember I own the 20 f1.8 AFS, it is a fun lens and it never dissapoints me
An example image taken without looking through the viewfinder
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Travel/Isla-Isabel/Isla-Isabel-Mar-2016/i-sFHW2R4/0/1855c576/XL/_DSC9420_DxO-XL.jpg)
It is very useful on any situation, still I bought mostly for astrowork
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Travel/Isla-Isabel/Isla-Isabel-Mar-2016/i-pLQr2wW/0/03b9aa25/XL/_DSC9515-6-7-8-9-Pano-XL.jpg)
Both images shot at f1.8
-
Mongo,
I think you will enjoy the lens, you may remember I own the 20 f1.8 AFS, it is a fun lens and it never dissapoints me
An example image taken without looking through the viewfinder
It is very useful on any situation, still I bought mostly for astrowork
Both images shot at f1.8
Oh, I love this blue-footed boobies image! Thank you for posting it again!
-
Mongo,
I think you will enjoy the lens, you may remember I own the 20 f1.8 AFS, it is a fun lens and it never dissapoints me
An example image taken without looking through the viewfinder
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Travel/Isla-Isabel/Isla-Isabel-Mar-2016/i-sFHW2R4/0/1855c576/XL/_DSC9420_DxO-XL.jpg)
It is very useful on any situation, still I bought mostly for astrowork
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Travel/Isla-Isabel/Isla-Isabel-Mar-2016/i-pLQr2wW/0/03b9aa25/XL/_DSC9515-6-7-8-9-Pano-XL.jpg)
Both images shot at f1.8
I remember these shots an I really really like them
-
Hmm...my humble understanding is that PL doesn't work evenly on the lenses whose focal lengths are 24mm and wider.
It's not that the Pola filter doesn't work evenly, it's that the darkening of the blue sky due to polarization is not evenly distributed over the entire hemisphere of the sky.
The polarized portion of the sky is a ring whose plane sits at 90º to the sun-viewer axis. Find the sun, look 90º away from the sun, and you'll be looking at the most polarized portion of the sky.
At sunrise or sunset, the ring is straight above. At high noon, the ring sits at the horizon, 360º around you.
The ring, or zone of maximum polarization, is roughly 30º-40º across. The field of view of a wide angle lens is much more likely to see beyond the polarized zone than a narrow angle lens.
-
Keith, I am shaking my head in disbelief!
The things I learn here unexpectedly, are beyond my wildest expectations. Thank you for such a concise and understandable explanation.
Are you able please to explain the difference, as related to photography between circular and 'normal' polarising filters? I understand circular is a requirement for digital but linear for film, I can't understand why they should be different.
-
It's not that the Pola filter doesn't work evenly, it's that the darkening of the blue sky due to polarization is not evenly distributed over the entire hemisphere of the sky.
The polarized portion of the sky is a ring whose plane sits at 90º to the sun-viewer axis. Find the sun, look 90º away from the sun, and you'll be looking at the most polarized portion of the sky.
At sunrise or sunset, the ring is straight above. At high noon, the ring sits at the horizon, 360º around you.
The ring, or zone of maximum polarization, is roughly 30º-40º across. The field of view of a wide angle lens is much more likely to see beyond the polarized zone than a narrow angle lens.
How is this different on digital than it was on film? I am familiar with the limitations, but seemed like Mongo said they didn't work as well with digital cameras and I'm trying to understand why.
I suppose with digital post processing you can more easily modify the sky if you want.
However, I find them interesting in the way they knock down reflections - this can have big effect in saturating the colors of foliage.
-
... At high noon, the ring sits at the horizon, 360º around you...
In this situation, it is possible to use a polarizer on even the widest lens and get even polarization of the sky from edge to edge. The polarizer nicely cuts through the haze near the horizon, while the sky higher up is less affected by polarization but is a deeper blue anyway, so the effect looks even top to bottom. I regularly used a polarizer on my 20mm lens (and I'd use it on my fisheye if I could!)
Even when the sun is lower and the band of maximum polarization arcs up into the sky opposite, the polarizer can still be used effectively with some care, depending on how you frame the sky, and whether you adjust the polarizer so the sky is fully or only partially polarized. It's only when you get a dark band of polarized sky running down the middle of the image that it doesn't really work. So I don't believe it when people say that you can't use a polarizer on wide lenses, you have to judge each scene on its merits.
The effect is the same with film and digital, but in my experience, polarizers results in a strange loss of contrast on digital that I never found on film, even on the best multi-coated filters. I suspect digital sensors are more reflective than film, so reflections from the polarizing foil itself (sandwiched between the glass) may be the cause.
-
However, I find them interesting in the way they knock down reflections - this can have big effect in saturating the colors of foliage.
Yes, I neglected to mention the non-sky-darkening uses of polas. They still work for refections within the standard acceptance angles. They can be very effective for eliminating the glossy shine from leaves.
-
The effect is the same with film and digital, but in my experience, polarizers results in a strange loss of contrast on digital that I never found on film, even on the best multi-coated filters. I suspect digital sensors are more reflective than film, so reflections from the polarizing foil itself (sandwiched between the glass) may be the cause.
I've also noticed this. I am thankful in those situations that digital allows quick and effective contrast adjustment.
-
Armando, never look through the viewfinder again! :)
I always thought that the extra thin B+W MRC circular polarizers could be mounted on wide angle lenses. I didn't know of the 24mm rule. I have one that I used to use on my 17-35/2.8 but I cannot verify or substantiate whether there is any loss when shooting wider than 24mm.
-
Keith and Roland, thank you very much for explaining detailed behavior of PL filters.
I always wondered why Cheyco Leidmann, one of my favorite photographers, even used a specially made PL for his 13mm/f5.6 Nikkor lens!:
http://cheycoleidmann.blogspot.com/search/label/14-Tec
Armando, never look through the viewfinder again! :)
I didn't know of the 24mm rule. I have one that I used to use on my 17-35/2.8 but I cannot verify or substantiate whether there is any loss when shooting wider than 24mm.
LOL!
Jakov, the 24mm-rule that I've heard of might to be meant as a very general advice for the total beginners. ;D
-
Are you able please to explain the difference, as related to photography between circular and 'normal' polarising filters? I understand circular is a requirement for digital but linear for film, I can't understand why they should be different.
Robert, I'm not Keith (obviously!), but so far as I understand, the linear PL will interfere with the half-mirror. So, even the film cameras can malfunction with the linear PL, if they use half-mirrors in any part of the light path. The reflex mirrors of virtually all AF and some TTL SLR film cameras (electric or mechanical) are half-mirrors: they pass the partial light through them to let the sub-mirrors reflex the light through the reflex mirror to guide it to the AF sensor or the metering sensor located at the bottom of the body.
Nikon F3 used a mirror with the pin holes instead of the half-mirror for the same purpose, and its catalog boasted that it can be used with the linear PL without problem.
-
Well, a lot seems to be happening since Mongo last posted.
Very big thanks to Armando for posting two fabulous examples that have encouraged Mongo no end.
Also to the number of members who have given us very valuable insight and information into the working of the polariser. Like a lot of you, it has baffled Mongo for some time. The explanations still suggest an element of caution in their use re time, place of sun in sky, width of focal length etc. Mongo would add, probably location/distance from the equator. So, there is something to the varying results Mongo has been getting over the years to the point he stopped using polarisers on digital. It may warrant a closer look but clearly some study will need to be done beforehand.
Lastly, received the lens today. Absolutely couldn't distinguish it from a new one !! Took several dozen quick images of varying subjects at varying F stops and conditions. Quiet , smooth and decisive AF. Already in the camera’s rear playback screen there was a noticeable jump up in colour saturation, contrast and clarity. Examined images on computer monitor and at 100% crop and could not fault the lens. Did notice some flare in circumstances where the f3.5 would not have flared. One of the biggest shocks was the extreme shallow DOF in images with large aperture settings. A little like Armando’s image of the boobies. This was something Mongo had not been used to with such a wide lens until the 20mm F1.8. This is a good thing and lots of room for creative photography.
Mongo can say he is happy he got the F1.8 (admittedly in unusual but advantageous circumstances) and can use it happily with the F3,5 each for different purpose and character. Still do not see Mongo carrying both around at the one time unless he is specifically going out to photograph just landscapes for the day.
-
Sounds like a happy day for Mongo!
It would be good if Mongo could post some images taken with the new lens, perhaps even one with the 3.5 for comparison?
Akira many thanks for the info, this seems to be something of a dark art! Obviously entirely controlled by physics. Trying to grasp the complexities is a challenge but I feel I now have a better understanding.
-
Sounds like a happy day for Mongo!
It would be good if Mongo could post some images taken with the new lens, perhaps even one with the 3.5 for comparison?
Akira many thanks for the info, this seems to be something of a dark art! Obviously entirely controlled by physics. Trying to grasp the complexities is a challenge but I feel I now have a better understanding.
Would love to Seapy but it may be a little while before Mongo can find just enough time to do a short but reasonable comparison and post the results. So, will try to do so but by then, Mongo may have to make it the subject of a new thread in lens talk.
-
very good thread with a lot of unexpected chances to learn about neglected aspects of our " black art" shooting pictures with black boxes and black lenses made by Nikon!!!!