NikonGear'23
Images => Nature, Flora, Fauna & Landscapes => Topic started by: Mongo on August 22, 2016, 12:35:35
-
Nikkor 20mm f3.5 AI-s (usually used at f8)
-
Mongo has outdone himself once again!
And I don't even like black and white.
-
Fantastic images !
-
Gorgeous images and great bw conversion. Were some of the scenes from "Lord Of the Rings" movies shot over there?
-
Mongo has outdone himself once again!
And I don't even like black and white.
thank you Peter. Hope you may be a convert to B&W
Fantastic images !
Thank you Armando - happy to have those words from someone of your experience
Gorgeous images and great bw conversion. Were some of the scenes from "Lord Of the Rings" movies shot over there?
Thanks Anirban. Not sure if these were scenes from Lord of the Rings but highly unlikely. Conversion was all done using photoshop CS5
-
#1 is gorgeous
#2 is difficult to understand for me in that size.
-
#1 is gorgeous
#2 is difficult to understand for me in that size.
thank you Frank. RE #2, Mongo understands what you mean. It may be too cropped to give an adequate perspective of this engulfing "U" shaped glacial valley. Mongo appreciate your feedback/comment
-
Mongo, these are not only terrific landscape images, but also can be paired nicely. The contrast between the concave mountains and the convex valley is attractive. :)
-
Mongo, these are not only terrific landscape images, but also can be paired nicely. The contrast between the concave mountains and the convex valley is attractive. :)
thanks Akira. Mongo had not noticed that. Your observation is quite true. Yin and Yang, peaks and troughs, mountains and valleys. Glad you like them.
-
Gorgeous images and great bw conversion. Were some of the scenes from "Lord Of the Rings" movies shot over there?
The whole of "The Lord or the Rings" and "The Hobbit" were made in New Zealand using real or computer-generated backgrounds. http://www.newzealand.com/int/feature/the-lord-of-the-rings-trilogy-filming-locations/
Ross
-
Where is the original Sea-Land? It's somewhere is Scandinavia isn't it?
Dave
-
Mongo, these are beautiful. Your choice of black and white is perfectly fitting. I recently acquired this lens for close ups with a K-1 and am pleased to see that it works so well for landscapes. Thanks for posting!
Tom
-
When I bought a 20/2.8 AIS I was thinking of selling my 20/3.5 AI. I checked Bjørn's reviews and kept the 20/3.5 for its flare and ghost resistance. I also picked up a K-Ring set. I still check those reviews from time to time.
Bjørn's old site is a great resource!
Dave
-
Where is the original Sea-Land? It's somewhere is Scandinavia isn't it?
From Wikipedia: "In 1645, Dutch cartographers renamed the land Nova Zeelandia after the Dutch province of Zeeland. British explorer James Cook subsequently anglicised the name to New Zealand."
There is also a Zealand in Denmark, but it is not the origin of the name New Zealand.
-
Bjørn pointed out that Ai/Ais 20/3.5 suffers from field curvature and that it is not the most suitable for the landscapes. I've used my Ais 20/3.5 only on the film and digital DX bodies.
How do you think about the performance of the lens on FX bodies?
-
When I bought a 20/2.8 AIS I was thinking of selling my 20/3.5 AI. I checked Bjørn's reviews and kept the 20/3.5 for its flare and ghost resistance. I also picked up a K-Ring set. I still check those reviews from time to time.
Bjørn's old site is a great resource!
Dave
I agree Dave that Bjorn has provided a great resource. I am still playing with the lens to get results I like with the K-1. The field of focus is very close and very narrow. I will post elsewhere one result or so I like but not in this thread because I don't want to step on Mongo's work.
Tom
-
Bjørn pointed out that Ai/Ais 20/3.5 suffers from field curvature and that it is not the most suitable for the landscapes. I've used my Ais 20/3.5 only on the film and digital DX bodies.
How do you think about the performance of the lens on FX bodies?
Akira, I feared the same results so I haven't tried it for landscape. But Mongo says he uses it at F/8 so that may eliminate the effects of field curvature. For use as a close-up lens with a K-1, I find it sharp, with good out of focus rendering and no pronouncable vignetting (although I can't remember if that was wide-open but I think it was. I'll have to check).
Tom
-
20/3.5 AI, 20/2.8 AIS, AF-S 20/1.8G ED.
Good, Better, Bestest (except the 3.5 is better than the 1.8 for flare and ghost Nano coatings not withstanding). Also the f/1.8 G doesn't have an aperture ring so all three have their place.
Dave
-
thank you all for your kind comments and some interesting history information. Its nice to learn things (even non photographic things) in the course of discussion.
Tom, please feel free to post here if you wish. The thread has created some interest in this small and favoured lens of Mongo.
Akira, re the 20mm f3.5’s use on FX and the question of field curvature:-
Mongo used this lens a lot with film cameras and had no complaints. Mongo had little reason to try and use it with his first digital camera (D200 being DX) because it would not really give a full 20mm wide image. So, he did not really use this lens during that period. However, when he went to a D800 and other FX bodies, he uses it extensively , again, without any problems - including field curvature that would be noticeable enough to require post processing correction. In fact, non of the images ever taken by Mongo with this lens on film or FX have ever needed correction.
If you look at the water line of image #1, you will notice that while Mongo has made an error in tilting the camera slightly downward to the right, the line is nonetheless straight. Mongo also noticed a small post processing error on that waterline also when looking back at this.
By comparison, a lot is made of the qualities of the Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8. Mongo had borrowed this lens for one corporate shoot of Board Members for their annual publication and found the lens to give atrocious results in relation to field curvature. The image was shot at 24mm using Mongo’s D4s. The horizontal timber beam across the top of the veranda and the brickwork of the of the lovely building used as the background for the group Board photo looked bent like a banana. Mongo was shocked and stuck with having to drastically correct the curvature in post processing. Needless to say, Mongo would never consider buying the 14-24mm f2.8 after that experience.
So, in simple examples when comparing a 30 year old lens (20mm f3.5) with much more modern and corrected lenses (e.g 14-24mm f2.8 ), Mongo can honestly say to you that the older lens left the modern more expensive lens for dead in relation to field curvature.
Bjorn’s observations are no doubt correct also and he has infinitely more experience than Mongo over infinitely more equipment. Bjorn also has a finer eye for fine detail when assessing a lens and comparing it to others.
Mongo can only tell you his experiences with various equipment he has used and tell it to you exactly the way he sees it without fear or favour. Equipment will only gain Mongo’s respect if it does well that which it claims to. Granted, this will only ever be relative in relation to equipment as there are no absolutes. Hope this is helpful to you and happy to try and answer any other questions if he can.
Akira, Mongo would suggest you borrow a FX body just to try a few frames on subjects that are likely to clearly indicate the extent of any field curvature using this lens. If you were not so far away, Mongo would gladly lend you one of his bodies.
PS - for landscapes, Mongo uses f8 and sometimes even f11. This is only because the MTFs for this lens show optimal performance at f8. Not sure whether this has any effect on correcting any field curvature or not.
-
Mongo,
I like both photographs but find the dramatic sweep of the second one most compelling. I like dramatic b&w.
Thank you for posting these.
Dave
-
thank you Frank. RE #2, Mongo understands what you mean. It may be too cropped to give an adequate perspective of this engulfing "U" shaped glacial valley. Mongo appreciate your feedback/comment
The sky features are well transported in the small web size. The rock not so much.
Knowing your work for years I guess that #2 would look
great in a coffe table book double spread .... you know Dave Paterson's Himalaya book? Something like that. High
resolution super detailed prints to savour the art of seeing and technical excellence.
-
Bjørn pointed out that Ai/Ais 20/3.5 suffers from field curvature and that it is not the most suitable for the landscapes. I've used my Ais 20/3.5 only on the film and digital DX bodies.
How do you think about the performance of the lens on FX bodies?
Hi Akira,
I put a couple of landscapes pictures in dropbox, both taken on a D600 with the AI 20/3.5 at f/11:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5g7fws1nrfpousa/AAB8glpc66coCnLHa-rP2A_ya?dl=0
The picture of the tree in particular has plenty of detail in the corners so should allow you to assess sharpness - granted it is not quite infinity but at this focal length it is close enough. The other shows how it performs shooting into the sun (I think I shaded the lens with my hand). Yes the horizon really does slope down to the right in this part of the world! :o :o
I'm reasonably happy with this lens, let us know what you think.
-
Roland. These are two wonderful pictures full of pleasent
details taken in the best of light. Very convincing performance
of the lens too. Thank you for generously sharing your insight
and work.
-
The 20/3.5 (52mm threads) stopped down to f/11 delivers reasonable sharpness into corners for infinity focus subjects. At f/5.6 or so, corners are definitively soft. Used up close none of these traits are easily seen.
-
Tom, thank you for your response. I've had only good impression of the lens both on film and DX bodies, and your experience with K1 well coincides with Bjørn's review. Hope to see your images with the combo. :)
David, thanks for sharing your experience with three different 20s. Unfortunately I've had no good experience with 20/2.8. I've had one when I was using a film body, but it was noticeably inferior to Ais 20/3.5 in terms of flare, sharpness, corner sharpness as well as distortion. Recently I tried several samples of Ais 20/2.8 on my D750 at a well known Nikon second-hand shop in Ginza. Some of them were even overhauled at a well regarded repair house of Nikon specialist. None of them offered any satisfying results. The image were generally soft and the corners were smeared even at f8.0. So, I don't think I would look at Ais 20/2.8 again. AF-S 20/1.8 would be a no-brainer, but it si a bit too bulky for my preference, especially with the petal-shape hood attached.
Mongo, thank you for sharing such a detailed experience with the super-wideangles. You seem to have an exceptional sample of 20/3.5. If a sample can offer such satisfying results of landscape images like yours at f8.0, it is well worth looking at. I liked Ai20/4.0 that I had, but the viewfinder image was a bit too dark and the images were a bit too soft. Also, thank you for offering the use of your D800. As mentioned above, I'm happy owner of D750, so I can try any lens anytime I feel like. :)
Roland, thanks for sharing sample images. I've downloaded them and will investigate them after I post this reply. :)
Bjørn, thanks for a very useful info in addition to your now famous review on your "classic" site.
-
Roland, your image samples exemplify that 20/3.5 (52mm filter thread) is a satisfactory performer. I also enjoy the beautiful landscapes.
So far as I'm aware, you have only contributed here with the trustworthy info on the Nikon products. But I would like to remind you that your images are well worth posting here for our pure enjoyment and appreciation!
Thanks again.
-
Hi Mongo
These images have transported me out onto a fjord hearing the the water lap up the side of a small boat, my gaze directed at these beautiful panoramas, and my wanting to head over to a valley for a picnic.
Escapism is Bliss.
-
thank you Roland, Bjorn and others for your contributions to better understand the characteristics of this small lens.
The only other point is sample variation. Perhaps Mongo’s copy is at the better end of this lens’ sample variation OR it is simply that the 20mm f3.5 can perform reasonably if used at its best settings and circumstances of use. It is far from perfect but given its size and convenience, it stands up reasonably well. Like Akira, Mongo too has had thought of replacing it with something better like a 20mm f1.8 or 24mm f1.8. or Tamron 15-30mm and it may well come to this eventually. However, for the present, it has been hard to make that decision given the size and bulk of the alternative (but excellent) lenses.
John, glad these images have brought back good feelings for you
-
I had the AIS 20/2.8 for a while, back in the days of film. I conducted a very short side by side test with my AI 20/3.5. At wider apertures my 20/2.8 was about a stop ahead in sharpness. But since I use the AI 20/3.5 mostly for landscapes stopped well down, and occasionally at closer range at wider apertures, it performed well enough for my purposes. I much preferred the smaller size of the AI 20/3.5 with the standard 52mm filter of my other AI lenses, and the better flare resistance. It's a sneaky lens too, most casual observers wouldn't realise that this small lens has such wide angle of view and that they are included in the scene... 8) I eventually sold the 20/2.8.
Thanks to those who commented on my images. So it is not too far off topic, they were also taken in New Zealand, but at the opposite end of the country from the fiords. The tree is "Tane Mahuta", the largest tree in NZ. It is a New Zealand Kauri Agathis australis. Most were cut down for ship-building and other purposes, the largest are as big as Sequoias.
As for why I don't post pictures more often, I am a little embarrassed to say that my processing skills are close to zero, and I don't yet have a suitable computer system :o :o I shoot raw+jpg - raw so that one day I can do something more with the image, jpg so I can enjoy the pictures now.
-
Mongo: very impressive beautiful images 😊 Glad to notice that these were taken with the 20mm f/3.5. I have a Nikkor-UD sample, I bought in 1971 and which was AI upgraded by Nikon, at that time. I haven't used the lens for a very long period, except for some quick and very basic test pictures on a modern FX camera. In this focal area, I'm using the excellent Nikkor 16-35mm f/4. But your pictures triggered the decision to make an in depth revisit of this beautiful lens.