NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Sherman71 on May 12, 2017, 18:18:04
-
I own a D300 and was thinking about a 20 or 24mm AIS Prime for landscapes. How do these compare to the 35mm 1.8 g (which I own).
-
If you want a modern lens with all that entails, the 24/1.8 AFS is an obvious choice. Going the AI/AIS route, the 20/3.5 UD, 20/4, or a good copy of 24/2 can be evaluated. For the 24/2.8 Nikkors, the early 'K' is also possible if it is AI-modified.
-
Hi, Sherman71, welcome to NG!
I used AF-S24/1.8G on D750, and haven't found anything to complain about maybe except for the size (but not the weight).
The point would be if the angle of view is wide enough for your need. If you want to go wider, AF-S 20/1.8G would also be a potent candidate.
-
Can I suggest you look at the 18mm as well? I prefer that angle to 20mm though it is subtle. Should work well with your 35mm
-
Landscapes and ultra wide lenses don't match well in my opinion. I do know this goes against the usual recommendations, but so be it. Take the opinion for what it is worth.
The various 18 mm Nikkors are fairly good, but most of them are old designs if we're talking primes. The 14-24/2.8 probably will outperform these in most situations. However that will not entail it is the "better" lens as a lot of other considerations come into play.
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4178/34234202230_afc56497ce_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UaaeC3)2017-05-12 001-1 (https://flic.kr/p/UaaeC3) by (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4173/34458218832_7c66b06fd3_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/pho[url=https://flic.kr/p/UuXnXf)2017-05-12 019-1 (https://flic.kr/p/UuXnXf) by (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4161/34578651826_bf94d59e86_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photo[url=https://flic.kr/p/UFACub)2017-05-12 022-1 (https://flic.kr/p/UFACub) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/)(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4176/34578645416_a3d29a2c65_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UFAAzE)2017-05-12 022-1-2 (https://flic.kr/p/UFAAzE) by (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4159/34489636381_a918a0d7a7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UxJpi8)2017-05-12 023-1 (https://flic.kr/p/UxJpi8) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickrlongzoom[/url[url=https://flic.kr/p/UxJnDg](https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4179/34489630821_8949f874e[url=https://flic.kr/p/Q1Bhun][img]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/665/31512009253_bb2e52bf32_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/)2017-01-15 002-1-2 (https://flic.kr/p/Q1Bhun) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickr0_b.jpg[/img][/url]2017-05-12 023-1-2 (https://flic.kr/p/UxJnDg) by longzoom[/url[url=https://flic.kr/p/Q1BfUt](https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/525/31512003923_4a384f6416_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/)2017-01-15 002-1-3 (https://flic.kr/p/Q1BfUt) by (https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/478/32283961586_483f00be6e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RbPK2m)2017-01-15 002-1 (https://flic.kr/p/RbPK2m) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickrlongzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickr], on Flickr], on Flickr, on Flickrs/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickrtos/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr. There are better wide lenses, not much, thou, but for quality/price consideration the old AF or AF-D Nikkor 20/2.8 is spectacular. If you got the good copy, of course. 3 last images with crops. Those are not pretending on any Art quality, for sure, just to show the technical abilities of that old loyal dog! Good luck! LZ (Two missing images are in the post next to this. Sorry).
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/665/31512009253_bb2e52bf32_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Q1Bhun)2017-01-15 002-1-2 (https://flic.kr/p/Q1Bhun) by (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4179/34489630821_8949f874e0_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[url=https://flic.kr/p/UxJnDg)2017-05-12 023-1-2 (https://flic.kr/p/UxJnDg) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickrlongzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr. Two images are missing in the post above - main and crop. Sorry for this! LZ
-
If you go the modern approach, then, the 20mm f1.8 and 24mm f1.8 are excellent choices.
If you go the AI or AIs route, then, most of the 20mm and 24mm are quite good. Some can be larger and heavier. Mongo still uses a 20mm f3.5 as the smallest and gives very reasonable results (especially at f8 and f11). Had the 24mm f2 but found it was not great wide open but would perform very well stopped down. In the case of the 24mm f2, if you are not using it for journalism and having to stop down to use it for landscapes (which are generally stationary), then, there is little purpose in f2. Would suggest you try 24mm f2.8 instead.
-
Define what you see as "wide" on your D300 body.
Since your D300 has the 1.5 crop factor, none of the lenses mentioned so far are really wide mounted on that body. That is not saying that the mentioned lenses are bad. Your own 35mm is hardly wide on the D300 with it's 52mm FOV. Nikon has not really put any effort into wide primes for DX, for wide they only offer a couple of DX zooms, the 12-24 and the 10-24. Yes there is the 10mm fisheye.
I have the 12-24, and the 12m (18mm FOV) wide end is not where it performs best. If you take it out to 24mm, it's a pretty good lens, but that's a 36mm FOV on a DX body, a long way from the wide FOV lenses used by FX bodies.
-
Any particular reason you want AIS prim lenses? For landscapes on a DX body, the AFS 18-35 or AFS DX 12-24 are likely to be more versatile.
-
yes, the others are correct. Mongo also momentarily forgot that the D300 is a DX format. Surely you might want a lens that would effectively yield a 20mm to 28mm final image......???
-
Instead of buying a new lens, how about buying a full frame camera?
-
I own a D300 and was thinking about a 20 or 24mm AIS Prime for landscapes. How do these compare to the 35mm 1.8 g (which I own).
Take a look at the very versatile 1.8/20G which was introduced together with the D750 a while ago. Smashing lens and a bargain for 800€. Also ultra-wide with a FX body
-
Instead of buying a new lens, how about buying a full frame camera?
Excellent suggestion! I own a D300s that only gets a little use. My primary camera is now a D800. The D800 gave me back my 105/2.5 and wide angles.
Dave
-
Landscapes and ultra wide lenses don't match well in my opinion. I do know this goes against the usual recommendations, but so be it. Take the opinion for what it is worth.
Years back, maybe 1973, I took a photograph of three minor peaks on a backpack trip in the Eastern Sierra Nevada. I was drawn to the colors and shapes. I used a 105/2.5 as that framed the peaks nicely but as I did I wondered if I should use a 105mm as everyone knows you use a wide angle for landscape. I'm glad I did as I liked the photo. It's funny I remember my thinking as took the photograph.
---
Sherman71,
Today I figure you use any lens that gets the photograph you want. With an ultra wide angle you'll get a lot of foreground and the middle and background will be quite diminished. A super telephoto will look over the foreground and middle ground. Both extremes may be difficult to use.
What about an AF-S 16-85/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX? 16mm is quite wide, not quite super wide; while 85mm get you a medium telephoto. I don't own the lens but I've use my friend's and I quite like the lens. I find it a good walk around lens.
Dave Hartman
I still think an FX camera is a good idea.
-
On a DX camera I love to use the 10,5mm. Even if you get a distorted look some times, I like to it when you want to show something in the foreground and still get some of the surroundings. This one is from today with the D500. Its not to everyones taste, but I think it would perform well on your D300. Its also very small, light and compact especially compared to wide-angle lenses for FX.
-
I bought my 20mm f3,5 Nikkor-UD back when I still used a D300 as main camera. It was pretty much wide enough for my liking back then, and it happily switched places with my 24mm f2,8 Nikkor-N.C.
Even though I used the two quite a bit, I even started liking them better after buying a D3.
So with all that has been said, I agree with Børge here that a full frame fish eye lens can also be a very nice alternative to a wide angle lens. And with some software, you can effectively defish an image to get something that is close to an image taken with a rectilinear lens. Nowadays on full frame, my 24mm hardly ever comes out of the closet, but the 20mm is with me whenever the 16mm full frame fish eye stays at home.
-
I defished a 16/2.8 AIS on my D300s as my wide angle. I think it yields an angle of view similar to a 25~26mm lens on FX. There is some loss width due to the perspective correction's clips. It was OK I guess. I think I mentioned before the D800 gave me back my 105/2.5 and wide angle lenses.
Dave Hartman
-
A rectilinear 16mm on DX yields an angle of view similar to 24mm on FX. A de-fished 16mm fisheye would give a wider angle of view, probably closer to 20mm on FX.
-
One shouldn't compare angle of views for Fisheyes vs ordinary wideangles. The quality loss occurring in the defished images cannot be ignored. Once in a while this can be acceptable, many times not so. If defishing is not performed, one has to accept the fisheye geometry.
-
One shouldn't compare angle of views for Fisheyes vs ordinary wideangles. The quality loss occurring in the defished images cannot be ignored. Once in a while this can be acceptable, many times not so. If defishing is not performed, one has to accept the fisheye geometry.
Yeah, I tried the 16/3.5 AI on my D300 and it can be de-fished a bit and still have nice image quality left over (NOT the 16/2.8 though . . .). Can't get to a true rectilinear image that way.
The only way to get to a rectilinear image with 16mm fish is to stitch images that have been de-fished so that the far corners don't suffer so much, but even then . . .
-
A rectilinear 16mm on DX yields an angle of view similar to 24mm on FX. A de-fished 16mm fisheye would give a wider angle of view, probably closer to 20mm on FX.
Perhaps I'm shooting from the hip here. The process of correcting liear distortion cuts deeply into the final angle of view as I recall.
Dave
-
If you have no plan of moving up to FX, you should not ignore the humble little 18-55/4.5-5.6 kit lenses. There are several different versions. The latest AF-P is not compatible wth D300, and the very first version is not really good, but the other ones will work marvelously on a DX body at wider ranges. I have used 18-55/3.5-4.5II (the second generation) on D40 and the first VR version (the third generation) on D7000. They worked admirably. For D300, I would recommend the first collapsible version. (The second collapsible version is AF-P which is, as mentioned, incompatible with D300 and is only fully compatible with the latest bodies).
-
Perhaps I'm shooting from the hip here. The process of correcting liear distortion cuts deeply into the final angle of view as I recall.
Correct, converting a fisheye image into a rectilinear image throws away the corners (the rest of the image is then stretched to fill out the corners to remove the barrel distortion, with resulting loss of quality). However, the resulting image is still wider than would be achieved from a rectilinear lens with the same focal length.
-
Wider, and possibly with increasingly poor quality off axis. You cannot have both when the image data are massaged in the defishing process.