Sigma 20mm f/1.4 ART or Nikkor 20mm f/2.8

[Akira]

I mean, the far right below corner of the second image looks a bit flared (or fogged) on my screen.

[richardHaw]

that looks as good as it gets 

[longzoom]

Aha, I see, Gentlemen! It is part of my brighten  window frame, from the right extreme corner side, making the foggy reflection, I believe! Yeah, there was no hood, my fault! Sorry for this event!  THX! LZ

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

the corners are certainly very impressive. I'd be quite scared to open up a lens.

[David H. Hartman]

It looks to me like flare but the sun possition is wrong for the sun as the source. Could it be a touch of flare from the broad expanse of sky?

I've never thought of my 20/2.8 as more prone to flare than typical of a super wide. It's certainly not flare resistant like my 20/3.5 AI. I've notice some faint  flare with my AF-S 20/2.8G ED. I can remember if it was from sun or white clouds. When I bought my 20/2.8 AIS I checked Bjørn's legacy site and then checked for flare and ghost. That lens is so resistant I decided to keep it. I also bought a K-Ring set for close-up.

I like all three lenses. If I ever get my darkroom working again I'll want the 2.8 for shooting B&W with my F3. I won't sell my f/3.5 because of its flare resistance. The f/1.8 is my primary 20mm lens now.

Dave

[Akira]

During the film days, I used AF-D 20/2.8 on F100.  It flared very easily.  Around the same time, I looked into my friend pro photog's F3 with Ais 20/2.8, and it also flared very easily when a fluorescent light tube was right behind the top of the frame.

[richardHaw]

the ghosts are small but sometimes it can make something that looked like a batman symbol  the flare on the other hand contributes to the "outdated" look that I was talking about. i miss the lens to be honest.

[Macro_Cosmos]

Why not consider the 20/1.8G or Voigtlander 20/3.5? 

[Øivind Tøien]

the ghosts are small but sometimes it can make something that looked like a batman symbol  the flare on the other hand contributes to the "outdated" look that I was talking about. i miss the lens to be honest.

Yes, photographing a subject with a bright background like a window behind can give this dreamy flare with the AF 20mm f/2.8.

[longzoom]

Exactly, like in this case! LZ

[mysh]

I have tried quite a few of the 20mm lenses from Nikon. I have tried the 20mm 2.8 AIS, 20m 2.8D AF, 20mm F4 AI, 20mm 3.5 UD. Overall I was never happy with any of them and found them to have glaring flaws. Out of all these I actually liked the 20mm 3.5 UD and 20mm F4 to be the best. I just never liked the 2.8 versions.

I did pick up the 20mm 1.8G when it was released and it changed my opinion of the Nikon 20s. The new 1.8G is an amazing lens and one I highly recommend. I don't know how it copares to the Sigma ART but it is lightyears ahead of the older Nikon 20s.

[longzoom]

Agreed, out of questions! The new 20/1.8 is really best in the Nikon family (among 20-th). But we are speaking here how to get a dirty cheapo non-working  lens, fix it yourself to absolutely workable condition and post here sharp and contrast  images! To be honest, I am not in badly need of this old lens, but it is my little proud, what have I done with my own hands and knowledge to this peace of old glass, without real gears! It is fully workable photographic instrument now! Thank you for your comment, Mysh!  LZ

[longzoom]

2017-06-23 001-1-2 by 2017-06-23 001-1-2-1 by longzoom, on Flickrphotos/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr.    It is the same lens in, almost, the same position, but at F5.6 now. The crop, from extreme corner. So, I believe, this aperture is an optimal for my copy of the lens. THX!  LZ