NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Zang on December 01, 2024, 15:50:17
-
Hello everyone,
I had been avoiding this lens for quite some time because I didn’t trust vintage wide-angle lenses. My collection of manual lenses topped out at 24mm, which I thought was the widest focal length with reliable quality. That was until I stumbled upon a Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AI-S for just $85!
To be honest, the lens wasn’t in great shape—it had fungus on the internal elements and oil on the aperture blades. But after a couple of hours of work, it looked (and worked) like new!
I did some quick test shots around my room, and to my surprise, the image quality was really impressive. I know this lens has been discussed to death here, but I’m curious—what’s your experience with it?
Should I hold on to it, or should I save up for a G or Z-series lens instead?
Cheers,
Zang
-
If you are happy with the image quality then why not keep it? You can always add a more modern lens later, if you fancy.
-
Hey Ian,
Good point! My opinion was just based on the four shots I took in a dimly lit room. I’ll definitely put the lens to real-life use when I get the chance. With winter being a bit dull, though, it might be a little while before I can really test it out and that was why I asked for your opinion on the lens beforehand :)
Cheers!
-
If you find the image quality of your sample is impressive, I would say you were really lucky.
While I was using nikon cameras (film or digital), I've never encountered a single decent sample. All I tested showed unusable corners even stopped down to f11.
All other 20mm lenses I've used (20mm f3.5 UD, Ai 20mm f4.0, Ai 20mm f3.5 and AF-S 20mm f1.8) were far superior and offered satisfactory images.
-
Thanks, Akira!
I’ll find a good brick wall and take a closer look at the corners of the image. My initial positive reaction might have been a bit premature, it could end up proving me wrong! :)
Cheers!
-
If you do not shoot brick walls, you will like its small size. It can pass for a standard lens and help you shoot interesting street views (I know, that's unethical but some rare people deserve that).
I always found its wavy distortion difficult to handle.
The 20/3.5 AI is definitely the better alternative (and even smaller) but that is no reason to throw away the 20/2.8.
I made no side-by-side comparison with the Viltrox 20/2.8 for Z mount, but the latter does not feel superior (even though its wavy distortion is less conspicuous). The old 20/3.5 UD better but needs to be stopped down.
-
I have the 20/3.5 -very small- in very good condition that’s OK in the digital age, but I have a lot of time with no use.
24-70/4 is too good with Z8 to pass.
But 20/2.8 is a nice choice to have :)
-
Originally I purchased the 20mm f/2.8 for use in an underwater housing, but I have put it to good use in a lot of other settings as well. The lens is pleasant to use, foucs is smooth, and build quality fells sturdy like the other Nikkors of the same vintage.
I suspect it can get out of alignment if dropped, as there is a CRC group inside. Barring that adverse impact, the optical quality is pretty good. It was an excellent combinstion with my Df. Also performs very well in IR with my D5300. Apparently I haven't yet tried it out on my Z5 for IR., but that sitation can easily be rectified.
-
If you do not shoot brick walls, you will like its small size. It can pass for a standard lens and help you shoot interesting street views (I know, that's unethical but some rare people deserve that).
I always found its wavy distortion difficult to handle.
The 20/3.5 AI is definitely the better alternative (and even smaller) but that is no reason to throw away the 20/2.8.
I made no side-by-side comparison with the Viltrox 20/2.8 for Z mount, but the latter does not feel superior (even though its wavy distortion is less conspicuous). The old 20/3.5 UD better but needs to be stopped down.
Being curious, I decided to do some more test shots to compare the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 with my old Fujifilm 14mm f/2.8, and I made some interesting discoveries:
Both lenses set at f2.8.
Near minimum focusing distance (MFD):
a) Center: The Nikon 20mm looks way better than the Fujifilm 14mm—sharper and more contrasty.
b) Extreme corners: The Nikon 20mm looks bad here. Even without my glasses, I can tell the Fujifilm outperforms the Nikon in the corners. In fact, the Fujifilm seem to be sharper in the corners than in the (its own) center!
c) 25% diagonal edge: The Nikon performs very well in this area.
At 2.5m distance:
a) Center: The Nikon still holds up well, and the center still seems to be better than Fujifilm. This time the Fujifilm looks better overall, though its contrast is still a bit lower than the Nikon’s.
b) Extreme corners: The Nikon is just as bad as it was at MFD. The Fujifilm remains very strong in the corners, though slightly worse than it was at MFD.
c) I got tired at this point and didn’t bother checking the 25% edge.
Please note that the test might be unfair, tilted in favor of the Nikon, as is was conducted using two different cameras (FF vs APS-C).
Cheers!
-
Curvature of field needs to be taken into consideration. You might have not gotten the CRC group in alignment when the lens was cleaned and reassembled.
-
Curvature of field needs to be taken into consideration. You might have not gotten the CRC group in alignment when the lens was cleaned and reassembled.
I was very careful and used my own method of marking and measuring to ensure everything was put back exactly the way it was. That said, bad things can happen sometimes, no matter how careful we are.
I tested the lens at f/2.8, and so far, the results are in favor of the Nikon. Based on that, I don’t see any reason to think the lens is misaligned.
-
...When I said Nikon looks bad in the corner, I really mean "much worse than Fujifilm". The corners from Nikon were not that terrible to ruin the photo at all, and I was talking about the extreme corner.
-
Just a couple of random 20/2.8 shots. (Crete, 2017 when I met NG member Elsid in Chania). The 20 Nikkor does well in visible and IR.
-
Thanks Birna, the photos look really good!
-
When I said I made interesting discovery, I meant I was surprised Nikon outperforms the Fujifilm at f2.8 in center in different distances. Based on the reviews on Youtube, Fujifilm is said to be an excellent performer "at any settings" :)
-
I had an AI-S 20/2.8 and AI 20/3.5 at the same time many years ago. In a brief head-to-head comparison, I found the 20/3.5 needed to be closed down about one stop compared to the 20/2.8 to match the sharpness. However I preferred the 20/3.5 due to the smaller size and standard 52mm filter size - the 62mm filter of the 20/2.8 didn't match any other lens so wasn't a good fit in my kit.
On a side note, I was looking at some shots I took with my 24/2.8 (AI converted K lens which uses the older 9/7 optical design). Pictures taken with my D600, fast shutter speed and lowish ISO are not really crisp, even at f/11. There are no noticeable side-to-side differences which might indicate mis-alignment. Maybe this lens is just not good enough for 24MP images, which is disappointing.
-
I had an AI-S 20/2.8 and AI 20/3.5 at the same time many years ago. In a brief head-to-head comparison, I found the 20/3.5 needed to be closed down about one stop compared to the 20/2.8 to match the sharpness. However I preferred the 20/3.5 due to the smaller size and standard 52mm filter size - the 62mm filter of the 20/2.8 didn't match any other lens so wasn't a good fit in my kit.
On a side note, I was looking at some shots I took with my 24/2.8 (AI converted K lens which uses the older 9/7 optical design). Pictures taken with my D600, fast shutter speed and lowish ISO are not really crisp, even at f/11. There are no noticeable side-to-side differences which might indicate mis-alignment. Maybe this lens is just not good enough for 24MP images, which is disappointing.
I never pixel-peeped before, but after you shared your experience with Nikon 24mm, I decided to test it at f2.8. 24mm's extreme corner taken near MFD looks worse than that from 20mm! I know testing at MFD is not fair, but with my limited mini home studio lighting, that is the only setup that I can use in dim lighting situation.
-
If you do not shoot brick walls, you will like its small size. It can pass for a standard lens and help you shoot interesting street views (I know, that's unethical but some rare people deserve that).
I always found its wavy distortion difficult to handle.
The 20/3.5 AI is definitely the better alternative (and even smaller) but that is no reason to throw away the 20/2.8.
I made no side-by-side comparison with the Viltrox 20/2.8 for Z mount, but the latter does not feel superior (even though its wavy distortion is less conspicuous). The old 20/3.5 UD better but needs to be stopped down.
Hi Akira,
I heard from a lot of people about the 20/3.5 being better than the 20/2.8, but I also hear voices telling they perform similarly or even with the 20/2.8 being better in several areas. I have impression that I am lucky enough to get a good sample of the 2.8 :)
Cheers!
-
I have the 20/3.5 -very small- in very good condition that’s OK in the digital age, but I have a lot of time with no use.
24-70/4 is too good with Z8 to pass.
But 20/2.8 is a nice choice to have :)
I am sure the modern lenses are much better and lenses from previous era suffer from a lot of shortcomings. I have no idea why I can't stop collecting the later :D
-
The modern lenses *are* better -- in many aspects. However, the point to pay attention to is how they work as a translator of your visual expressions ....
The vintage Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 UD is a good example to the above. It is one of the nicest lenses imaginable for IR shooting. The modern equivalents exhibit nasty IR hot spots, so their superior optics really aren't very helpful.
-
I never pixel-peeped before, but after you shared your experience with Nikon 24mm, I decided to test it at f2.8. 24mm's extreme corner taken near MFD looks worse than that from 20mm! I know testing at MFD is not fair, but with my limited mini home studio lighting, that is the only setup that I can use in dim lighting situation.
Again, the 24 Nikkors have CRC. My sample of 24/2.8 got gradually worse until I adjusted the CRC, then it started to behave properly. Image quality of my 24/2 suddenly was horrible and really needed a CRC shake-up.
For close-distance testing, don't use flat subjects to evaluate corner performance unless you specifically refocus for the corners. Focusing on the centre of the frame may leave corners mushy. Most lenses are not designed to be true flat-field performers.
-
Again, the 24 Nikkors have CRC. My sample of 24/2.8 got gradually worse until I adjusted the CRC, then it started to behave properly. Image quality of my 24/2 suddenly was horrible and really needed a CRC shake-up.
For close-distance testing, don't use flat subjects to evaluate corner performance unless you specifically refocus for the corners. Focusing on the centre of the frame may leave corners mushy. Most lenses are not designed to be true flat-field performers.
I am aware of the spherical aberration, so I adjusted the focus individually for each test shot. The 24/2.8 lens I tested is in near new condition. I also have another 24/2.8 lens that appears to be unused, so I might test that one later as well.
That said, I mentioned before, testing wide angle lenses wide open in the corners, at their MFD is inherently unfair. I am confident that stepping back a few meters would improve corner performance. Additionally, the picture quality degradation is only noticeable from 25% of image diagonal.
Below is a real life test shot taken at f2.8. As you can see, the photo is more than just usable.
-
And this is 100% crop from the previous picture:
-
A couple of test shots this morning at f2.8 and f5.6.
-
I love my sample
In this topic several examples can be found
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=9764.msg165516#msg165516 (https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=9764.msg165516#msg165516)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9589.0;attach=45613;image)
-
Thanks John. I have heard more positive opinions about the lens in this group than outside of it, so I am happy I own the lens :)
I love your picture too. How did you focus yourself and do you remember the aperture setting? :)
-
That shot was with the Z7 at f/8 and using the focus zoom on the Z7
-
That's what I guessed - this lens performs well from f5.6 onwards.
I was joking about "focusing yourself", but that part could be confusing. You weren't the guy with the boat, were you? :) As for the selfie I took in my basement (shared in the previous post), I had to focus then camera on myself and that is not easy with a manual lens.
-
Exactly, corners are bearable at f/4 and fully acceptable from f/5.6. The other real issue with this lens is, apart from the wavy distortion, the sensitivity to flare (unlike the 20/3.5 AI). Otherwise it is a joy to use because of its ideal size. Manual focussing (on a matte screen) is difficult in dark places, but with the Z cameras that's no longer an issue.
-
A couple of test shots this morning at f2.8 and f5.6.
Looks like a very good sample. Or you have assembled the parts successfully!
-
Exactly, corners are bearable at f/4 and fully acceptable from f/5.6. The other real issue with this lens is, apart from the wavy distortion, the sensitivity to flare (unlike the 20/3.5 AI). Otherwise it is a joy to use because of its ideal size. Manual focussing (on a matte screen) is difficult in dark places, but with the Z cameras that's no longer an issue.
Right... At the price of just $85, I'll forgive her for all her shortcoming :)
The lens initially had dirt and oil inside, but after being rebuilt, it looks like it hasn’t seen much use at all.
-
Looks like a very good sample...
Thanks Akira, indeed it does.
The overhaul was satisfying as I witnessed just how much dirt and oil was removed. Every part was dipped in solvent, thoroughly washed with soap and wiped with alcohol.
-
The 20mm f2.8 AIS - I used two different copies - never really sharpened up in the extreme corners on DSLR FX systems. I really enjoyed using the lens since build quality is wonderful but my use boils down to specific uses f.e. tilted on an A6000 with a converter or when shooting extreme near far combinations. Imo its just not sharp enough on modern F-mount sensors even closed down to f8 or f11 (havnt tested much with the Z8 but my guess: same problem). However, I will keep mine - its nice to have sometimes and its so small :). Best wishes! Sören
-
I've never had the f2.8 AIS, though I have the AF version, which seems to be OK, though I haven't shot a lot with it. I've had the f3.5 AI and UD and the f4 in AI and K version. The f3.5 AI is the one that has stayed with me -- I sometimes will take it and a 55-200mm for my D5500 and call that good for travel.