NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: zuglufttier on August 14, 2015, 13:02:32
-
Hi there,
right now I'm using an old 20/3.5 Ai for most of my landscape pictures. While the lens works great, is very light and there's no lighting situation I have to avoid, I only get mediocre sharpness from it when the focus is set to infinity. This is a known problem ;) I didn't really notice this before I used it in my holidays in Ireland... Well, not a real problem but the nerd in me wants a bit more sharpness.
What would you say are my options? I'm a bit spoiled by the 35 and 85mm lenses from Samyang, especially the 35mm is almost perfect. Is the 20/2.8 Ai-S a real upgrade to the 20/3.5 for my purposes or should I just get the new 20/1.8G? I'm a bit attached to the feel of the old Nikkors... If 14mm weren't too wide for my taste, I'd just go and grab the Samyang 14mm.
-
I never heard an earnest praise for the Samyangs except when it comes to price performance relation esp for the fisheye
If I was in the situation I'd sure get the 20mm/f=1.8G
-
The 20 mm f/3.5 Nikkor (52 mm filter thread) never was renowned for its infinity performance. You had to stop it well down to get the corners acceptable in this situation. However, use it at closer range or shoot into the sun and it was excellent.
The 20/2.8 following it is even sharper for the near range, but flares easier than the f/3.5, and although it is better for landscapes and similar, it isn't up to what you can get from the new 20/1.8 G.
-
The old 20/3.5 UD might be better at infinity and does not flare a lot, but
1) it is big and heavy
2) it is non-AI. Better have a Df
3) corners are not Ok until f/8
I second Bjørn's opinion about the 20/2,8; also, it had nasty wave distortion (significantly more than the UD), and is usually expensive.
I am not aware of Samyang producing a 20mm.
Bottom line : go for the 20/1.8g, despite the size.
-
Airy. 20/1.8G size is not small but it is rather light and features very good
near field prrformance and a snappy and precise AF on the D750
-
I never heard an earnest praise for the Samyangs except when it comes to price performance relation esp for the fisheye
If I was in the situation I'd sure get the 20mm/f=1.8G
Really? The 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 are on par with the lenses from Nikon, Zeiss etc. The build quality is also not too bad after all.
The 20 mm f/3.5 Nikkor (52 mm filter thread) never was renowned for its infinity performance. You had to stop it well down to get the corners acceptable in this situation. However, use it at closer range or shoot into the sun and it was excellent.
The 20/2.8 following it is even sharper for the near range, but flares easier than the f/3.5, and although it is better for landscapes and similar, it isn't up to what you can get from the new 20/1.8 G.
Well, this is not what I wanted to hear ;) A used 20/1.8G is a about three times more expensive than a used 20/2.8 Ai-S. But I guess that's the way to go for me. Another option would be using a zoom but they don't seem to be any better regarding quality or cheaper in the end. The only thing against the 20/1.8G may be its size...
I guess, I'll go with the new 20/1.8G in the end.
-
Don't forget the new 20/1.8 G is quite light weight despite being bigger than the older siblings.
-
I have the small 20mm/3.5, and I have used 3 different 20mm/2.8. My experience is that all of them are very good near, but my f/3.5 is the only one of them that is good at all distances. So I can't recomend the f/2.8 as a replacement for the f/3.5 for landscapes.
-
Thanks for all the input!
@Asle: Good to know. I guess the 20/2.8 Ai-S would only be a minor upgrade, if at all, in the end.
-
I have mainly used my 20/2.8 AIS in an underwater housing as it excels in the near range. However, I quite recently had the lens with me on a trip to the Netherlands, and it behaved much better on my Df that I had anticipated. A pity not to use it more as it is beautifully made and handles extremely well on that camera.
The last one shot at ISO 25600 which the Df handles with aplomb.
-
Is anybody here who can commit to the quality of Samyang/Rokinon/Wallimex Optics?
-
It depends on your reference frame. I have tried the 14/2.8 which is very good except for the distortion. I have the 24/3.5TS which is quite good for the money but has a few caveats as well. I heard (but don't know from first-hand experience) that the 24/1.4 is quite exceptional in its coma correction, leading in this focal length. I think with Samyang a lot depends on whether you get a good copy, as sample variation is thought to be quite large by some people. Also the feel and build quality is maybe not to everyone's taste, and in the lenses I have experience with, the contrast and rendering is to on the level of Nikon/Zeiss.
-
I think with Samyang a lot depends on whether you get a good copy, as sample variation is thought to be quite large by some people.
And I think this is more to due to the rather shallow DOF with the aperture set to 1.4, if you're used to lenses with autofocus ;)
-
Is anybody here who can commit to the quality of Samyang/Rokinon/Wallimex Optics?
I have owned 4 of the 24/1.4 Rokinons and returned all of them.
Everyone raves about their excellent coma performance however I suspect that the "reviews" are biased towards DX format DSLRs and/or web sized images.
The 24/1.4 has the ability to be an excellent minimal coma lens (on FX and large images) as was the case for one of the copies I had. Unfortunately there was way too much focus slop which made critical focusing on stars a nightmare, so back it went. The two other copies had excellent coma performance in 2 of the 4 corners (optics misaligned) and the fourth copy was just plain soft.
I have a friend who has rented this lens twice and both copies suffered the same issues. If you rent one and find it "perfect" then offer to buy it for full price, I would.
I really want to like this lens (for nightscapes) and it's been over a year since I bought my first copy and 6 months since my last copy. The experience and frustration is fading so I might be tempted to try again.
-
I have not seen the inside of a Samyang lens, but Roger Cicala has.
He has reported, in his blog at Lens Rentals.com, that they are built not to be disassembled or serviced. There is no factory service(at least in the USA), and there are no parts available either, so an independent shop would be limited in what they could do should your Samyang lens ever need service.
-
I think with Samyang a lot depends on whether you get a good copy, as sample variation is thought to be quite large by some people.
And I think this is more to due to the rather shallow DOF with the aperture set to 1.4, if you're used to lenses with autofocus ;)
No, I've heard folks complain about decentering issues.
-
I can only talk for myself ;) My Samyangs are all fine and I've been using them for five years or so.
-
I can only talk for myself ;) My Samyangs are all fine and I've been using them for five years or so.
Congrats! Just make sure to not bump them around too much :)
-
I'm happy owner of Samyang 7.5mm/f3.5 fisheye for m4/3. The image quality is excellent corner to corner. However, the distant scale and the infinity stop are not very reliable. Thanks to the one-touch magnification of the LCD on GF5, the manual focusing is a breeze. The focus ring feels well damped but may be a bit easy to worn out.
I'm looking at 14/2.8 for my D7000 because the distortion is strong but of a simple barrel type on DX.
One complaint about the fisheye and 14/2.8 is that they have 6-blade aperture. So, when you stop down, you will only get six-ray star image. I would have liked to have seven-blade aperture.
-
Recently I was looking for a wide angle for astro-landscape photography.
The final finalists were the Nikkor 20mm f1.8 and the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8.
I eventually chose the Tamron after testing both in parralel. It is beautifully sharp at infinity, even wide open.
Yes, it's bigger and heavier than the 20mm, but I think it culd be very good for your purposes, and here in SA it is also cheaper than the 20mm.
-
I find my old and tattered nikkor 20 mm f2.8 ais to be an exceptional and relatively affordable UWA solution. It takes filters and really works well. One 20 mm shot for you C & C
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/448/19570265232_2144294a53_b.jpg)
-
Lovely image, Somnath!
However, I am not sure that it proves 20/2.8 sharpness at infinity :)
-
I agree,,, lovely reflection in the water behind/in front of the rock!
Sun and the clouds infront of it looks a little strange :o
-
Any 20mm from Nikon out there is good enough to produce excellent photos! They are also sharp enough and there's no situation in which I'll miss a shot or something.
But: Some are sharper than others! This is a purely technical view ;)
-
Lovely image, Somnath!
However, I am not sure that it proves 20/2.8 sharpness at infinity :)
Yes , I agree. That was the way I shot it , focused rather close and the morning mist obliterated the distant shores. Thanks for your thoughts.
regards
Somnath
I agree,,, lovely reflection in the water behind/in front of the rock!
Sun and the clouds infront of it looks a little strange :o
I botched in PP :P
Cheers
Somnath
-
a 100% crop from lower left edge to centre horizontally and a bit more vertically. Quite sharp near the centre (near right upper edge in this crop) at f/11, but still falls off significantly towards the edge, left.
-
Hi there,
right now I'm using an old 20/3.5 Ai for most of my landscape pictures. While the lens works great, is very light and there's no lighting situation I have to avoid, I only get mediocre sharpness from it when the focus is set to infinity. This is a known problem ;) I didn't really notice this before I used it in my holidays in Ireland... Well, not a real problem but the nerd in me wants a bit more sharpness.
What would you say are my options? I'm a bit spoiled by the 35 and 85mm lenses from Samyang, especially the 35mm is almost perfect. Is the 20/2.8 Ai-S a real upgrade to the 20/3.5 for my purposes or should I just get the new 20/1.8G? I'm a bit attached to the feel of the old Nikkors... If 14mm weren't too wide for my taste, I'd just go and grab the Samyang 14mm.
Late to the party a bit, but I've tested a couple of 20/3.5 AIS lenses and found them all to be not very sharp, not nearly as sharp as my 20/2.8D and my equally sharp 20/2.8 AIS. However, my best 20mm/2.8 lens is my 17-35/2.8 - it's not perfect, but stopped down it's sharp across the frame and it has excellent flare/ghosting characteristics. It is large and heavy though . . .
-
However, my best 20mm/2.8 lens is my 17-35/2.8 - it's not perfect, but stopped down it's sharp across the frame and it has excellent flare/ghosting characteristics. It is large and heavy though . . .
It's also a really good 24mm lens as well.
-
However, my best 20mm/2.8 lens is my 17-35/2.8 - it's not perfect, but stopped down it's sharp across the frame and it has excellent flare/ghosting characteristics. It is large and heavy though . . .
It's also a really good 24mm lens as well.
Most definitely.
It's a lens that Nikon needs to update and re-release.
-
I agree. But the 17-35/2.8 is still one of the best lenses to work in the field. And I like it's bokeh too at F/2.8. Besides that you can approach the subject at 28 cm which gives room for macro/details especially at 35mm.
Here a recent photo D700 at 20mm F4 - Protest against expansion of city hall
-
" Another option would be using a zoom but they don't seem to be any better regarding quality or cheaper in the end."
Nikon's 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 AFS G. Since acquiring this lens I have used virtually nothing else for wide-angle, in spite of owning the 21 Zeiss Distagon, the 28 /f2 AIS, and the 35 Sigma f1.4 - all fantastic lenses. The zoom's maximum aperture of f3.5 at 18mm is the only downside I have experienced.
-
Did you make a decision in the end? 20mm lenses are always a good topic. For landscape I turn to my 20mm f/4 Nikkor (used at f/11) and it is well mannered. Good sharpness at infinity too - but not sure how different to the f/3.5...
Here is one from the 20mm f/4 today? I like this lens very much.
-
Weill, the new AF-S is the thing to get ;) I don't have it already but my brother might take my 20/3.5 and I'll just buy the 20/1.8 after that.
I'll be in Finland in November and that's where the lens is going to get some use! The 20/3.5 is nice overall, sharpness is OK and it's very compact. We'll see if the bigger size ever bugs me...
-
good choice, and while you are in Finnland you might even meet people from this site in person if this is what your heart is set to...
-
Finally, I ended up buying a used 20/1.8 AF-S. It's nice: Not heavy, size is still OK and the image quality is very good overall. I'd say that the new 20mm is as sharp at f/1.8 as the old 20/3.5 at f/5.6.
-
yes, the 1.8/20mm is a real winner and it is light & small enough for a normal panohead. It must not be a pro grade expensive one to extend your reach even further.
-
Plus, there are some nice sun stars!
-
The 24mm 1.4 AFS doesn't show sunstars from street lights like these even when stopped well down,,, must be the coatings that are different...
-
The 24mm has 9 aperture blades which will produce 18 instead of 14 sun stars like the 20mm which has 7. The more blades, the less distinctive the sun stars. But the coating might to some magic, too ;)
-
There is more to sunstars than the amount of blades ;) how well rounded they are, the opticas itself and the coating and ?
-
I don't see how coatings greatly affect sunstars. Sunstars are caused by diffraction around the edge of the aperture blades. If the blades are straight, diffraction along the straight edge reinforces and you get an nice point in your sun star. Curved aperture blades causes the light to be diffracted in different directions so you end up with diffuse halos around point sources of light, or weakly defined stars, not nice crisp stars.
On the other hand, if you have out of focus blurs in your picture, the blurs generally look nicer if they are a rounded shape (curved aperture blades), and not the shape of straight-edge polygons. What you gain on one side, you lose on the other. The best aperture blades (IMO) are rounded at wider apertures (where OOF blurs are more noticeable) which become straighter at smaller apertures (where diffraction, and therefore sunstars, are strongest)
-
I don't see how coatings greatly affect sunstars. Sunstars are caused by diffraction around the edge of the aperture blades. If the blades are straight, diffraction along the straight edge reinforces and you get an nice point in your sun star. Curved aperture blades causes the light to be diffracted in different directions so you end up with diffuse halos around point sources of light, or weakly defined stars, not nice crisp stars.
On the other hand, if you have out of focus blurs in your picture, the blurs generally look nicer if they are a rounded shape (curved aperture blades), and not the shape of straight-edge polygons. What you gain on one side, you lose on the other. The best aperture blades (IMO) are rounded at wider apertures (where OOF blurs are more noticeable) which become straighter at smaller apertures (where diffraction, and therefore sunstars, are strongest)
I would have guessed that coatings can affect the appearance of the sunstar through flare around the light source, but this is only a guess. This could be tested with two otherwise identical lenses, one of which had some of the coatings removed. I believe that dirt or dust on the front element can affect the appearance of the sunstar and get you additional flares.
-
The best aperture blades (IMO) are rounded at wider apertures (where OOF blurs are more noticeable) which become straighter at smaller apertures (where diffraction, and therefore sunstars, are strongest)
This is exactly how the 20/1.8 behaves, although these are not perfect circles ;)
-
Is anybody here who can commit to the quality of Samyang/Rokinon/Wallimex Optics?
I own or have owned 3 of the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/Pro Optics/Walimex lenses. The 14mm, 35mm and 85mm. I used them both on the Nikon D600 and Nikon D800E camera bodies.
They all are extremely sharp. The 14mm's distance scale was off by quite a bit on my copy. I simply marked infinity on mine. Typically it has not presented a problem. I have heard that this has been addressed by Samyang and is not as much of an issue with the newer examples. Also, there are a few articles, posted on-line, on how to make the correction yourself. Distortion is complex. I found a few lens correction profiles for LR that do a great job correcting it. Build quality? Seems rather well built. The focus ring is large, well dampened but may be a but long for some. I read the same article by Roger at Lensrentals.com. that is mentioned earlier in this thread. Here is exactly what he had to say about the Rokinon 14MM while recommending it as one of his bargain lens choices.. " It's manual focus, but at 14mm focus is basically 'everything I can't touch is usually in focus' so that's not critical. (Manual focus is the reason I didn't include longer Rokinon lenses as bargains.) It has a lot of barrel distortion, but everything else at this focal length has some. Not as much, but some. But it's amazingly sharp. Better than the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 prime (which is way dated) and 1/3rd of the price. I will note, this is held together inside with plastic, glue, and small screws. You won't be using it for years. But the price of a new one is less than the price of a repair on a 14-24 f/2.8." After 3 years of use, If mine was lost, stolen or broke..I'd buy another. For most uses, this is an EXTROIDINARY lens. INMYHOP.
The 35mm, being one of my most used focal lengths, is my favorite Samyang lens. This lens is crazy sharp, even at 1.4. It is sharper than anything made by Nikon or Zeiss. (Per DXO)) It is only beaten marginally (an unnoticeable amount) wide open by the Sigma 35MM 1.4 Art. Stopped down to F/2 and beyond it matches or beats even the Sigma in sharpness. I find it to be a large, heavy(compared to most 35mm) well built lens with a great feel. It's only down fault, for some, is being a manual focus lens (Nobody complains about Zeiss being MF!)
The Samyang 85mm F/1.4 is another great lens. SHARP>>>SHARP>>SHARP! Much smaller than the 35mm and again can I say sharp. Also, INMYHOP has pretty darn nice bokeh as well.
For me, it all boils down to this. When I can purchase all 3 of the Samyang lenses mentioned for less than the price of a Sigma 35MM Art and almost half the price of a Nikon 85MM 1.4G, it is well worth taking a very close look at their line of lenses. Also, being manual lenses, it would be my guess, that they may be around longer than their AF counterparts, before heading in for repair.
Note: I originally purchased the 3 lenses as an inexpensive set of dedicated video lenses. Being quite impressed...I began to use them for stills. For photography that does not require AF and if you are comfortable using MF lenses, the Samyang line of lenses are affordable and can produce excellent images. One could spend much more and do far worse.
-
And now we have the Sigma 20/1.4 Art lens. Hopefully, for astro/nightscapes, it performs slightly better than the Sigma 24/1.4 in the coma and CA department.
-
Thank you, Mike!
-
I shouldn't be reading this because I would just love to have a 20/1.8 to replace my 20/2.8 AF (not D).
-
And now we have the Sigma 20/1.4 Art lens. Hopefully, for astro/nightscapes, it performs slightly better than the Sigma 24/1.4 in the coma and CA department.
Shane, this review may offer some food for thoughts...
http://www.lenstip.com/457.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html
-
Come on Ron - be a devil. It is nearly Christmas and I reckon that you deserve a new lens. Actually the 20mm f/1.8 is not unreasonably priced IMHO. :D
I shouldn't be reading this because I would just love to have a 20/1.8 to replace my 20/2.8 AF (not D).
-
I shouldn't be reading this because I would just love to have a 20/1.8 to replace my 20/2.8 AF (not D).
Sounds like an incredible idea at this time of year
-
Shane, this review may offer some food for thoughts...
http://www.lenstip.com/457.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_20_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html
Thanks Akira I had recently come across this report. One of the problems I have with lenstip is the number of samples tested and lens variability. I recently posed a couple of questions to lenstip concerning this point, as well as some others concerning their setup, but received no response.
For example their coma test for the Sigma 35/1.4 was interesting (and useful) when I compared it to my recently acquired (and returned) Sigma 35/1.4. My copy exhibited the same amount of coma at f/2.8 as their copy did at f/1.4, and at f/1.4 mine was horrible. Initially it might be hard to determine if their copy was an exceptionally well corrected copy or run-of-the-mill example. Based on other glowing reports, when this lens was used for Milky Way images, I assumed that it was a run-of-the-mill copy and returned mine for exchange.
Lensrentals are in a better position to comment on variability but it would be nice if they posted aberration image examples of a "typical" lens.
-
Shane, I wouldn't be surprised if you had already known about this lenstip test. :)
The problem of this kind of review is not only the sample variation, but that the reviews only show the optical character of the tested lens when focused at one particular distance. But there's no doubt hat you had known about that.
I don't think any lens reviews except for those of the Lensrentals are performing the tests with multiple samples. For example, photozone.de counts mostly on the volunteers to lend their samples for testing.
I myself have experienced multiple defect samples of the same brand (not Sigma) bought new, which eventually led to my doubt for their QC...
-
but that the reviews only show the optical character of the tested lens when focused at one particular distance
One of the questions I specifically asked them. :)
-
One of the questions I specifically asked them. :)
No wonder you asked this essential question. As you should already know, this interview supports how the resolution power changes according to the ditance and also the amount of lpm:
http://nikkor.com/technology/02.html
-
Mongo owns and has used the 20mm f3.5 Ai for many years quite happily. Not the sharpest lens but performs very well between f8 and f11 and set to hyperfocal distance. Mongo intends to keep usinging but if an upgrade is to happen in the near future, it was going to be the nikkor 20mm f1.8. Now, however, there are some serious third party contendors to consider before upgrading. Mongo has the sigma 35mm f1.4 Art and it is a superb lens dollar for dollar and feature for feature (but has no VR whic is of no consequence anyway) .
Maybe Mike's suggestion at the 14mm is worth thinking about and cropping when needed. However, Mongo has always found that 20 or 24mm have been his favourite landscapes lens together with the use of a 14mm as well i.e. 2 lenses
-
Now that I've used the 20/1.8 a bit I don't see any reason not to recommend it. It's very sharp overall, not heavy and produces nice pictures. I paid 590 euros for a used lens that looks and feels like new. That is not exactly cheap but the Nikon delivers!
-
14mm is very wide, so unless your up really close and use high MP camera, details will be very small, cropping 14mm to 20mm is not recommended IMHO
24mm is the best compromise for FF and 24 MP Then If wider is needed stitch together 2, 3 or 4 images in portrait mode.
-
Problem with wide lenses for landscape and architecture other subjects as well the distortion both in the corners and the horizontal compression, which can only be partly removed.
On horizontal compression the angle and plane of view are important, think of t/s lenses.
-
With high resolution images form good glass and good sensors T/S lenses are 'almost' a part of the present for images that need corrections, it's amazing what you can get away with without visible traces in the final image.
-
The 20mm f2.8 AIS is nice as a light companion, but its clearly not a sharp lens. On all digital full frame bodies it only gets acceptable in the corners at the edge to diffraction land (@f11 - where it quickly gets soft again). Even on the D3 it was a soft experience. At least all samples I had the pleasure to test behaved that way. I only grab it when I have to go compact and light and want a center object in the very near foreground to stand out (and I should upgrade to the 20mm f1.8 but I just love the build quality of these old AIS lenses and this sometime makes me forget the drawbacks of these old lens designs).
Usually I am with the 14-24 and its not a heavy beast when you are used to these f2.8 AFS tele lenses (and it includes some of the other classical fixed lenses). If you have a limited budget than go for the new 18-35 AFS version!
Regards! Sören
-
I fully agree with Sören on all points, but with one nuance.
The 20/2.8 AIS is indeed remindful of mirror lenses in that it is most useful at one aperture, maybe two (f/8, f/11) for landscape works. The same is true of the 20/3.5 UD.
I found it acceptably sharp on the Df (16 Mp), after some processing in Lightroom (some sharpness push, and the autocorrection of the wavy distortion, obtained by using the settings of the 20/2.8 AF version). And of course, CA correction.
Once corrected in LR, one may be satisfied with the result, also remembering that the 20/2.8 AIS is one of the smallest and lightest lenses around - which is very useful for street shots.
In addition, it can be used at wider apertures for close-ups, where corner sharpness does no longer matter. A relatively seldom use case, but nice to have.
Bottom line, it definitely is one of my worst performers (alongside the 28/3.5 PC, "worst" being relative), but as the 28/3.5 PC, it is an enjoyable piece of optics on Df.
Attached photo shot at f/11, IIRC.
-
If you move in closer, the 20/2.8 AIS can deliver very crisp images. I got better than expected results with this lens on my Df for street and night shots.
It certainly is smaller and has more character than the new 20/1.8 Nikkor, and its build and workmanship are miles ahead.
-
I fully agree with Sören on all points, but with one nuance.
The 20/2.8 AIS is indeed remindful of mirror lenses in that it is most useful at one aperture, maybe two (f/8, f/11) for landscape works. The same is true of the 20/3.5 UD.
I found it acceptably sharp on the Df (16 Mp), after some processing in Lightroom (some sharpness push, and the autocorrection of the wavy distortion, obtained by using the settings of the 20/2.8 AF version). And of course, CA correction.
Once corrected in LR, one may be satisfied with the result, also remembering that the 20/2.8 AIS is one of the smallest and lightest lenses around - which is very useful for street shots.
In addition, it can be used at wider apertures for close-ups, where corner sharpness does no longer matter. A relatively seldom use case, but nice to have.
Bottom line, it definitely is one of my worst performers (alongside the 28/3.5 PC, "worst" being relative), but as the 28/3.5 PC, it is an enjoyable piece of optics on Df.
Attached photo shot at f/11, IIRC.
I see that some seem to indicate that the Nikkor 20mm 2.8 AIS is not a very sharp lens.
I shall have to disagree with that statement.
The lens is not without fault.
- There is flare when pointed towards the sun.
- The corners at 2.8 are not as sharp as those in the Nikkor 20mm 1.8 AF-S.
However, at 2.8 my 20/2.8 AIS is at the same level as my 20/1.8 AF-S in the center when both are at 2.8. The AF-S is almost imperceptibly better, in my view not as much as to be photographically significant. When stopping down, the corners improve. At 4.0 and 5.6, the AIS is brilliant in every respect.
My conclusion is that the 20/1.8 AF-S is an extremely good performer, and at 2.8 it is as good as the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 at the same aperture in the center and additionally a tiny bit better in the corners.
The 20/2.8 AIS performs at a comparable level to both the abovementioned lenses in the center, and only towards the corners does it trail behind the two others. Stopping down to 5.6 makes it very good in the periphery too. In my opinion, the Nikkor 20mm 2.8 AIS is up to high standards although the 1.8 AF-S is better. At infinity the 20/2.8 AIS leaves nothing to be desired.
- Since the question was "20mm for landscape" I will recommend both the 2.8 AIS and the 1.8 AF-S for Nikon cameras, but I also think that for general landscape use 20mm can be a little too wide in many situations. For architecture and when enhancement of foreground detail is desired, 20mm is fine.
-
Correction : center sharpness of the 20/2.8 is good to excellent (I did not state the contrary). On wide angles, my expectations with side/corner sharpness are generally higher, but as stopping down is often an option, they are mostly fulfilled.
-
for a very long time, the 20mm f/2.8 AF-D was the only wide lens that I use for landscapes :o :o :o
it was good but no match for the 16-35mm ::)
-
I see that some seem to indicate that the Nikkor 20mm 2.8 AIS is not a very sharp lens.
I shall have to disagree with that statement.
The lens is not without fault.
- There is flare when pointed towards the sun.
- The corners at 2.8 are not as sharp as those in the Nikkor 20mm 1.8 AF-S.
However, at 2.8 my 20/2.8 AIS is at the same level as my 20/1.8 AF-S in the center when both are at 2.8. The AF-S is almost imperceptibly better, in my view not as much as to be photographically significant. When stopping down, the corners improve. At 4.0 and 5.6, the AIS is brilliant in every respect.
My conclusion is that the 20/1.8 AF-S is an extremely good performer, and at 2.8 it is as good as the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 at the same aperture in the center and additionally a tiny bit better in the corners.
The 20/2.8 AIS performs at a comparable level to both the abovementioned lenses in the center, and only towards the corners does it trail behind the two others. Stopping down to 5.6 makes it very good in the periphery too. In my opinion, the Nikkor 20mm 2.8 AIS is up to high standards although the 1.8 AF-S is better. At infinity the 20/2.8 AIS leaves nothing to be desired.
- Since the question was "20mm for landscape" I will recommend both the 2.8 AIS and the 1.8 AF-S for Nikon cameras, but I also think that for general landscape use 20mm can be a little too wide in many situations. For architecture and when enhancement of foreground detail is desired, 20mm is fine.
I agree with pretty much everything in this post.
I suspect those who find the 20mm 'soft' have merely handheld and misfocused. On a tripod, live view, and critically-focused the 20mm AI-S is bitingly sharp.
As a macro lens, reversed, it also offers 3.4x magnification (D810) and a 5.2x equivalent on the D500. It is a wonderful, very compact lens and companion.
Where we disagree is I think the 20mm focal length is ideal for landscape. I often find my 15mm Zeiss too wide ... and my 28mm AI-S too narrow. 20mm is a 'sweet spot' imo.
-
Yes, 20mm can be ideal for landscapes
Here the Drina river on the border between Bosnia and Serbia with the 20mm f/4 Ai
-
My primary complaint about the 20/2.8 AIS on my D800 is it's difficult to focus on the matte screen. I've shot it down to 1/30th at f/4.0 in an atrium in a rehab hospital with decent results. I had to hand hold and use live view to focus and the image on the LCD at 100% because when hand holding the LCD image jumps around a lot. I probably shot 3 or 4 frames to get at least one without hand shake. The D800 didn't turn into a pumpkin because I shot at 1/30th. Maybe I'm a pumpkin but then...
I was thinking to get an AF-S 24/1.8G as my 24/2.8 AI gives generous flare and ghost but I really like the 20mm focal length and still miss my 20/3.5 UD. The AF-S 20/1.8G ED solved the AF problem. It's not as fare and ghost resistant as the 20/3.5 AI which really close to perfect. I now own all three and have no plans to sell any of them.
I guess ignorance is bliss as I probably don't shoot a 20mm lens at infinity much and almost always would have something in the foreground of importance.
Dave Hartman
[edit in a few dropped words and added a sentence.]
---
If the 20/2.8 AIS were really sharp at infinity and just so-so at 2 to 4 meters that would be a deal breaker for me.
Don't most of the lenses of the Glass and Aluminum Age benefit for stopping down at least 1 stop at least in terms of sharpness? e.g. a 20/2.0 AIS will normally be used at f/2.8 or smaller where a 20/2.8 AIS will normally be used at f/4.0 or smaller.
Dave
-
My primary complaint about the 20/2.8 AIS on my D800 is it's difficult to focus on the matte screen. I've shot it down to 1/30th at f/4.0 in an atrium in a rehab hospital with decent results. I had to hand hold and use live view to focus and the image on the LCD at 100% because when hand holding the LCD image jumps around a lot. I probably shot 3 or 4 frames to get at least one without hand shake. The D800 didn't turn into a pumpkin because I shot at 1/30th. Maybe I'm a pumpkin but then...
[...]
Don't most of the lenses of the Glass and Aluminum Age benefit for stopping down at least 1 stop at least in terms of sharpness? e.g. a 20/2.0 AIS will normally be used at f/2.8 or smaller where a 20/2.8 AIS will normally be used at f/4.0 or smaller.
Dave
I would avoid hand holding a 20mm lens at 1/30th second in landscape photography at all cost, that is if I can possibly avoid it. There is no escaping the fact that a subtle softness is the inevitable result.
For crystal-sharp corners, the 20/2.8 AIS must be stopped down to at least 4.0, but in my experience it performs brilliantly in the center at 2.8 and only when the subject demands sharp corners - as is generally the case with landscapes/cityscapes - do I hesitate to use this lens at 2.8.
I feel encouraged upon learning that this lens also performs well on a D800. That testifies to the quality of the 20/2.8 AIS. Presently I use a D750, with no immediate plans to acquire a D810 or D850 but the possibility of such a progression cannot be excluded.
-
I agree with pretty much everything in this post.
I suspect those who find the 20mm 'soft' have merely handheld and misfocused. On a tripod, live view, and critically-focused the 20mm AI-S is bitingly sharp.
As a macro lens, reversed, it also offers 3.4x magnification (D810) and a 5.2x equivalent on the D500. It is a wonderful, very compact lens and companion.
Where we disagree is I think the 20mm focal length is ideal for landscape. I often find my 15mm Zeiss too wide ... and my 28mm AI-S too narrow. 20mm is a 'sweet spot' imo.
I might try to use the 20mm focal length more and see what I can get from it. Up to now, the ultra wides is something I have mostly used for architecture/buildings and of course aurora photography where one often needs really w-i-d-e. I have mostly used Zeiss lenses on a Canon 1D X for that, but after I bought the D750 to mate with my manual Nikkors chances are that I will explore the Nikon UWA territory as well.
I shall certainly give the 20mm 2.8 AIS a try as a macro lens in reverse position. Thank you for the suggestion.
All in all I am impressed with the 20/2.8 AIS.
-
I might try to use the 20mm focal length more and see what I can get from it. Up to now, the ultra wides is something I have mostly used for architecture/buildings and of course aurora photography where one often needs really w-i-d-e. I have mostly used Zeiss lenses on a Canon 1D X for that, but after I bought the D750 to mate with my manual Nikkors chances are that I will explore the Nikon UWA territory as well.
I shall certainly give the 20mm 2.8 AIS a try as a macro lens in reverse position. Thank you for the suggestion.
All in all I am impressed with the 20/2.8 AIS.
Sounds good.
I agree with what you said to David, also: hand-holding (using LV) at 1/30 offers way too many challenges in the sharpness dept. Can't blame the lens for the results.
I have hand-held normally, at decent SS, and still missed the focus.
When using a tripod + LV, even at 1/6, my shots are crisp as crisp gets.
Same camera, same lens, same shooter, just not being lazy ... but making sure everything's perfect.
The AIS lenses are great for reverse macro:
1) 20mm on a D500 (for an effective 5.2x), and 2) 28mm on a D500 (for an effective 3.2x) ... they were not hand-held ;D :
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000002239_large.jpg)
-
Where we disagree is I think the 20mm focal length is ideal for landscape. I often find my 15mm Zeiss too wide ... and my 28mm AI-S too narrow. 20mm is a 'sweet spot' imo.
+1. I love (and always have) 20mm for wide landscape shots. When I had the 24-85, I always found that it didn't go wide enough for me, so I guess 24mm just doesn't work for me. (Kind of funny, because I really like 28mm, too.)
The AF-S 20mm f/1.8G is a really, really nice lens. Here's a fun three-lens landscape kit: 20/1.8G, 85/2.8 PC-E, 300/4E VR PF...really love them all.
Has anyone played with a Voigtlander 20/3.5 pancake?
-
I would avoid hand holding a 20mm lens at 1/30th second in landscape photography at all cost, that is if I can possibly avoid it. There is no escaping the fact that a subtle softness is the inevitable result.
The problem was no permission to use a tripod. The setting was a rehab hospital. Also the permission to photograph the atriums wasn't official so a tripod might have drawn the attention of a supervisor who might say no to any photography.
Dave
-
Sounds good.
I agree with what you said to David, also: hand-holding (using LV) at 1/30 offers way too many challenges in the sharpness dept. Can't blame the lens for the results.
I have hand-held normally, at decent SS, and still missed the focus.
When using a tripod + LV, even at 1/6, my shots are crisp as crisp gets.
Same camera, same lens, same shooter, just not being lazy ... but making sure everything's perfect.
The AIS lenses are great for reverse macro:
This is overwhelmingly convincing. The images are excellent, but the AIS-lens is demonstrably a brilliantly versatile tool. I take for granted that the 24mm and 28mm AIS/AI-versions are similarly functional albeit with a little less magnification. Interestingly, this possibility is an argument in favor of AI/AIS lenses over the more modern G and E versions.
-
The AF-S 20mm f/1.8G is a really, really nice lens. Here's a fun three-lens landscape kit: 20/1.8G, 85/2.8 PC-E, 300/4E VR PF...really love them all.
Yes it is. That does however not detract from the very impressive performance of the MF models, which are proven to perform admirably also with newer high-MP bodies.
I seem to be "outvoted" and perhaps should try to explore UWA landscapes more than I have done before.
-
...As a macro lens, reversed, it also offers 3.4x magnification (D810) and a 5.2x equivalent on the D500. ...
Just a little side note: I learned long long time ago, that -despite the size you print a picture- with macro and micro (or microscopy) pictures, you always refer to the magnification with respect to the film/sensor?
(At least in the scientific world ;))
-
I would be good if people would forget this crop factor thing and just use lenses and learn what focal lengths do what on each format.
Dave
-
This is overwhelmingly convincing. The images are excellent, but the AIS-lens is demonstrably a brilliantly versatile tool.
Thank you ... and, yes indeed, they are :)
I take for granted that the 24mm and 28mm AIS/AI-versions are similarly functional albeit with a little less magnification.
Yes, exactly. In fact, the second image (the fly) was taken with the 28mm; the first was with the 20mm. Effectively, AI-S lenses (reversed) provide the following magnification beyond a standard 1x macro:
- A 50mm f/1.2 AI-S lens reverses to: 1.1x ( = 32.7mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage)
- A 35mm f/1.4 AI-S lens reverses to: 1.8x ( = 20.0mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage)
- A 28mm f/2.8 AI-S lens reverses to: 2.1x ( = 17.1mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage)
- A 24mm f/2.8 AI-S lens reverses to: 2.6x ( = 13.9mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage)
- A 20mm f/2.8 AI-S lens reverses to: 3.4x ( = 10.6mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage)
The above figures represent a FF (FX) 36mm sensor.
However, in this case, I took the images with a D500 (DX), so I multiplied by a factor of 1.5. For example, when you put a 300mm lens on a DX, you now have a 1.5x conversion factor, which gives you an "effective 450mm of reach," due to the crop. So too does a DX 1.5 factor amplify macro magnification.
The first image (a tick) was taken with the 20mm on my D500 (which transfers 6.9mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage, or 5.1x) ... while the second (the fly) was taken with the 28mm on a D500 (which transfers 11.2mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage, or 3.2x). This is in comparison to a 1x (36mm) sensor coverage on an FX, charted above.
Interestingly, this possibility is an argument in favor of AI/AIS lenses over the more modern G and E versions.
We agree again ... which is why I shoot only AI-S lenses (with the exception of a super-telephoto). They're lighter, just as good IMO, and much-much more versatile :D
-
Just a little side note: I learned long long time ago, that -despite the size you print a picture- with macro and micro (or microscopy) pictures, you always refer to the magnification with respect to the film/sensor?
(At least in the scientific world ;))
My magnification figures had nothing to do with print size or film; they were based precisely on sensor coverage. (See above)
-
Just a little side note: I learned long long time ago, that -despite the size you print a picture- with macro and micro (or microscopy) pictures, you always refer to the magnification with respect to the film/sensor?
Yes that's right. If an image of a bug projected on the film/sensor is the same size as the bug itself, the magnification is 1:1. If the projected image is only 1/2 the size of the bug, the magnification is 1:2, and so on.
It stands to reason that a bug projected 1:1 onto a m4/3 sensor will fill more of the frame than the same image projected onto an FX or medium format sensor. That's where the so-called "crop factor" comes in, but the magnification stays the same.
Of course when the same image is enlarged and viewed on screen or printed, the magnification is greatly increased.
-
Rehab Atriums shot hand held with a 20/2.8 AIS Nikkor...
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7317/16303400499_5b59b1705c_m.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_speedlight/16303400499/in/dateposted-public/)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7423/16303407079_3f746a8376_m.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_speedlight/16303407079/in/dateposted-public/)
I'll explain my technique better: I stepped back a little. Focused using live view. Stepped forward all to keep the camera about in the same place. Then I took the photos, free standing. Since the shutter speeds were very slow I shot several to get a few that were sharp. [I just checked the NEF(s): I shot three of the first one and two of the second. All were acceptably sharp. The 20mm lens is quite forgiving as the subject magnification is small.] This is the best I could do without a tripod. The use was a charities Face Book.
The focusing by Live View was difficult and focusing on the matte focus screen impossible. This series convinced me it was time to get a 20 or a 24 AF lens.
Dave Hartman
-
To elaborate on what Roland wrote, magnification is a scale thus the *format* of the medium is irrelevant. A picture captured at 1.5X is 1.5X no matter whether it is done with a CX, m43, DX, FF, medium format, or even an 8x10". This is one of the fundamentals you quickly learn when you work different formats (I've done all of those formats listed, by the way).
In scientific usage, a scale bar is more often used to indicate magnification as subsequent (secondary) magnification for printing etc. is self-explanatory.
-
Yes, a scale bar and the magnification is given. Modern software even does this automaticly.
-
To elaborate on what Roland wrote, magnification is a scale thus the *format* of the medium is irrelevant. A picture captured at 1.5X is 1.5X no matter whether it is done with a CX, m43, DX, FF, medium format, or even an 8x10". This is one of the fundamentals you quickly learn when you work different formats (I've done all of those formats listed, by the way).
In scientific usage, a scale bar is more often used to indicate magnification as subsequent (secondary) magnification for printing etc. is self-explanatory.
Technically-speaking, you're correct: a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens ... but we still call it an "effective reach" of 450mm on a DX ... even though we're still shooting a 300mm lens.
By the same token, you're right: a 20mm AI-S lens, reversed, only offers 3.4x magnification; a 28mm only 2.1x magnification.
I tried to say "an effective" 5.1x and 3.2x ... to reflect the 1.5x crop factor of the DX ... but at the end of the day the magnification of the lenses are constant, yes, regardless of the sensor size.
-
And to round off this sub-topic; primary magnification is at the recording medium. Anything later is secondary magnification and thus sooner or later one runs into the danger zone of "empty magnification". Meaning one gets a "bigger" picture, but no more detail. Very easily done if the capture format is small.
-
To elaborate on what Roland wrote, magnification is a scale thus the *format* of the medium is irrelevant.
And so 1:1 (life size) is not very impressive on 6x6 and if shooting bees the whole swarm (well not quite :) ) can be captured on 4x5...
I was disappointed with 1:1 on 6x6 but not surprised. I knew what to expect since 6x6 was my third format. My first lens for 35mm achieved 1:1 with the included extension tube.
Dave
-
On 8x10", life-size meant you captured almost the entire face of a person. However, depth of field was severely limited as it was set by the magnification, but the large format allowed diffraction-prone apertures (f/32, f/45, etc.) to be used as the secondary magnification would be small. Still, the price to be paid was the need for light.
-
As the saying goes:
- "A man with one watch know what time it is ... a man with many watches is never sure."
If you shoot across multiple platforms, the phrase 1:1 can become meaningless.
Since the vast majority of macro is taken with DSLRs, "the standard" 36mm sensor is a helpful anchor point.
Since magnification is what helps frame the shot, next to the size of our macro subject, the question of whether to shoot 1:4 or 4:1 is only meaningful if we have a reference point of 36mm as the standard.
A 9mm subject is 1/4 the size of a 36mm sensor, so we need to be at about 4:1 to 'fill the frame' with such a tiny subject.
If we think of a 20mm AI-S lens as a fixed "3.4x" magnifier, we can run into trouble :o
While that may be the perfect magnification to shoot a 9mm subject, on an FX ... giving me a bit of room on either side ... that same 20mm AI-S lens, on a DX, will only allow for 6.9mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage, so it will be too close on a DX.
This is why (compositionally) I prefer to think of a 20mm as 5.1x on a DX, 3.4x on an FX. (It may not be technically-accurate, but if we think of the differences in magnification that "switching cameras" brings, we make sure to use the right tool for the job.)
More succinctly, the 20mm lens would make sense for a 9mm subject on my D810, but it would be amplifying the subject too close on a D500.
-
There isn't such a thing as "meaningless magnification". Not for the primary capture. The entire imaging chain might run into empty magnification, though, if one is careless.
In fact magnification is a primary parameter for a host of other characteristics regarding the photo, its depth of field, the maximum resolution to be attained, exposure time, and so forth. Scientific photography without paying proper attention to magnification, however, easily defeats its purpose by the introduced ambiguity.
-
There isn't such a thing as "meaningless magnification". Not for the primary capture. The entire imaging chain might run into empty magnification, though, if one is careless.
Please read again. It's not the magnification that's meaningless, it's the phrase "1:1."
The "introduced ambiguity" is precisely differing sensor sizes.
If all sensors were 36mm, then the phrase "1:1" would always mean filling a 36mm sensor with 36mm of subject.
However, because 1:1 on a 24mm sensor means something different from 1:1 on a 17mm sensor, the confusion comes not because the magnification has changed, but because of the different framing requirements.
I suppose what I am trying to illustrate is lens magnification alone can't help you compose a shot; but lens magnification in relation to your sensor-size is the way to consider macro compositions.
E.g.,:
1:1 (or 1x) = 36mm on an FX ... 24mm on a DX ... and 17mm on a Micro 4/3rd.
The phrase "1:1" is therefore meaningless ... unless it's considered within the context of sensor size.
If you have a 9mm subject, you'd want to have about 10-12mm of room to frame it.
3x magnification would make sense for a 36mm sensor, but 2x magnification would make sense on a DX. You'd want less than that on a micro 4/3rd.
-
If you shoot across multiple platforms, the phrase 1:1 can become meaningless.
At 1:1 a bee that is 2.0 cm long in life will [be] 2.0 cm long on 36x24 and 2.0 cm long on 6x6 and still 2.0 cm long on 4x5. 1:1 means exactly the same thing on all formats.
Dave Hartman
-
At 1:1 a bee that is 2.0 cm long in life will 2.0 cm long on 36x24 and 2.0 cm long on 6x6 and still 2.0 cm long on 4x5. 1:1 means exactly the same thing on all formats.
Dave Hartman
Point missed, but I think I am at fault for my prior wording.
1) I realize it's not the bee that changes, my point was it's the framing.
2) I also wasn't speaking of 6x6 or 4x5 ... no one uses these for bee or macro photography.
I understand that 1:1 magnification = 1:1 magnification; that's a tautology.
So, yes, the reproduction ratio remains the same.
The point that is continuously being missed is 1:1 on a 36mm sensor might be too small ... and on another sensor it might be too large.
I can see how I worded it wrong previously, so let me re-phrase:
Let's say I am trying frame a 16mm subject with a 2:1 lens.
At its closest distance, a 2:1 lens reproduces 18mm of subject across a 36mm sensor, doubling the reproduction ratio.
So a 2:1 lens would be perfect for trying to capture a tight shot of 16mm subject (if I shoot FF).
The 16mm subject has its reproduction ratio doubled, to 32mm, which fits nicely on my 36mm FF sensor.
However, if I tried to use that same 2:1 lens on a crop 1.5x DX sensor, this means I will be trying to place 32mm of augmented subject on my 24mm sensor ... so some part of the subject will be clipped off.
When shooting macro, I can't just think 1:1 or 2:1 magnification; I have to think of 1) the size of my subject, 2) the magnification, and 3) the size of my sensor.
Saying 1:1 (by itself) is meaningless for macro composition.
These 3 questions have to be asked:
- What size subject is being considered for the macro shot? (4mm? 12mm? 30mm?)
- What is the reproduction ratio of the lens?
- What size sensor am I using?
If I know a 20mm AI-S lens offers 3.4x magnification, reversed, this means a 10 mm subject will be magnified to 34mm, which will fit on a 36mm FX sensor.
That same 10mm subject will magnify to the same 34mm using the 20mm AI-S on a DX ... but 34mm won't fit on a 24mm DX sensor.
If I know the 20mm AI-S offers 3.4x magnification, reversed, this means (if I am shooting a DX) that sensor can only handle ~7mm (with that 3.4x multiplier) before the reproduction ratio exceeds a 24mm sensor.
-
I never heard an earnest praise for the Samyangs except when it comes to price performance relation esp for the fisheye
If I was in the situation I'd sure get the 20mm/f=1.8G
I do not have a Samyang, but I have tried the Samyang 14mm 2.8 once. That was enough; The Samyang is by no means a brilliant performer and its mechanical construction was rather unconvincing - and that was an understatement. It was not very sharp in the center at 2.8 and the corners were so-so or worse. I believe that any lens has to be judged from its absolute performance. The Samyangs are inexpensive, but unfortunately the low price does little to improve the optical and mechanical quality.
-
Thank you ... and, yes indeed, they are :)
Yes, exactly. In fact, the second image (the fly) was taken with the 28mm; the first was with the 20mm. Effectively, AI-S lenses (reversed) provide the following magnification beyond a standard 1x macro:
- A 50mm f/1.2 AI-S lens reverses to: 1.1x ( = 32.7mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage)
- A 35mm f/1.4 AI-S lens reverses to: 1.8x ( = 20.0mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage)
- A 28mm f/2.8 AI-S lens reverses to: 2.1x ( = 17.1mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage)
- A 24mm f/2.8 AI-S lens reverses to: 2.6x ( = 13.9mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage)
- A 20mm f/2.8 AI-S lens reverses to: 3.4x ( = 10.6mm edge-to-edge sensor coverage)
[...]
We agree again ... which is why I shoot only AI-S lenses (with the exception of a super-telephoto). They're lighter, just as good IMO, and much-much more versatile :D
I must say that my 20mm 1.8 AF-S is superior to my 20mm 2.8 AIS, but as already mentioned this is relevant only in the corners and at two largest apertures. They are both eminently capable of being used for everything from informal snapshots to the most demanding tasks within commercial photography.
We fully agree that many of the manual Nikkors are true gems, and if one wants to use this macro capability their usefulness suddenly is above that of the newer designs unless one absolutely must have autofocus.
I have been a Canon user since 2002, and the sole reason why I chose to buy D750 was Nikon's admirable backward compatibility which enabled me to use my manual Nikkors - mostly acquired second hand - with a modern digital body. Perhaps I should have saved up for the D810, but after all the D3X also has 24 MP and if memory serves it received very high praise as a landscape camera when it hit the market. In my case, the high-quality manual Nikkors were the direct reason why I decided to add the D750 to my toolbox. My experience since then tends to justify that decision.
-
Whether it's 1:1 or 5:1 is immaterial. The magnification is the principal determinant of capture parameters, not the angle of coverage.
Isn't it about time to return to the actual topic of this thread?
-
I must say that my 20mm 1.8 AF-S is superior to my 20mm 2.8 AIS, but as already mentioned this is relevant only in the corners and at two largest apertures. They are both eminently capable of being used for everything from informal snapshots to the most demanding tasks within commercial photography.
At f/8 (which is where I shoot most landscapes) the 20 AI-S is pretty sharp. Colors are very nice too.
At f/4, where I shoot most macro-stacks, it is very sharp in the center, good colors also, and the corners really don't matter.
We fully agree that many of the manual Nikkors are true gems, and if one wants to use this macro capability their usefulness suddenly is above that of the newer designs unless one absolutely must have autofocus.
Indeed. For my purposes, I have no need for AF on a wide lens; only a tripod.
I have been a Canon user since 2002, and the sole reason why I chose to buy D750 was Nikon's admirable backward compatibility which enabled me to use my manual Nikkors - mostly acquired second hand - with a modern digital body. Perhaps I should have saved up for the D810, but after all the D3X also has 24 MP and if memory serves it received very high praise as a landscape camera when it hit the market. In my case, the high-quality manual Nikkors were the direct reason why I decided to add the D750 to my toolbox. My experience since then tends to justify that decision.
We have a similar background, as my first years were with Canon also. Unlike you, the AI-S world was a delightful surprise for me ... and now I am a Zeiss/Cosina fan because they still make all-metal lenses (although Zeiss' switch to the Milvus style is a disappointment, because of the rubber focus ring). The fact I was able to get a Zeiss 15mm Distagon, and the Apo-Sonnar at tremendous discount was a nice bonus.
Since using AI-S lenses, and since shooting the classic Zeiss, I am now interested in the pre-AI Nikkors, because they have the scalloped-metal focus rings, which is just a lot classier/nicer, IMO.
-
I can personally recommend the Zeiss 21/2.8 as a "landscape 20". It's imaging performance towers above the 20mm Nikkors I have used (20/3.5 Ais, 20/2.8 Ais) except maybe the 21/4 mirror lockup Nikkor. It is larger and heavier than the Nikkors, however.
-
I can personally recommend the Zeiss 21/2.8 as a "landscape 20". It's imaging performance towers above the 20mm Nikkors I have used (20/3.5 Ais, 20/2.8 Ais) except maybe the 21/4 mirror lockup Nikkor. It is larger and heavier than the Nikkors, however.
I have experienced that the Zeiss lenses are good, but not otherworldly good. I can testify that the Nikkor 20mm 1.8G ED AF-S is superior to the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 in the corners and equal in the center. In other words, the Nikkor 20mm 1.8-version is cheaper and optically better than the Zeiss 21 mm. However, when compared to the Nikkor 20mm 2.8 AIS the Zeiss is clearly sharper in the corners and evenly sharp over the whole frame. But the Zeiss is not better in the center than the 20/2.8 AIS and with both at 2.8. When stopped down to 5.6 the Nikkor 20/2.8 AIS is up to the task also in the corners and almost equal to the Zeiss 21 mm.
There is also a quirk: With my Zeiss lenses I regularly have to dial in +1 exposure compensation since the camera underexposes with one stop particularly in dark environments. That is with Canon versions, I do not know whether such is the case with the Nikon versions but assume that it is. This is inconvenient.
The Zeiss 15mm 2.8 Distagon is extremely well suited for architecture and interiors. I have never seen any better lens for such purposes. It shows impressively little light fall-off in the corners, nice colors and is razor sharp at close and middle distances. However, at infinity the things change a bit. It seems optimized for shorter distances and is not the best performer at infinity. I have found that the Canon 16-35 4.0 IS is clearly superior to the Zeiss 15mm when both are at infinity and the Canon is at 4.0 and the Zeiss at 2.8.
I also had the opportunity to test the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 III against the Zeiss 15mm 2.8 at different distances and with both at 2.8. It turned out that the Canon performed better at infinity, but that it also had more light fall-off with darker corners. At middle and short distances they were pretty equal, but the Zeiss 15 mm remained better in the corners.
-
At f/8 (which is where I shoot most landscapes) the 20 AI-S is pretty sharp. Colors are very nice too.
At f/4, where I shoot most macro-stacks, it is very sharp in the center, good colors also, and the corners really don't matter.
I would say that the 20/2.8 AIS is very sharp in the center from 2.8 and very good in the corners from 5.6.
-
The Zeiss 15mm 2.8 Distagon is extremely well suited for architecture and interiors. I have never seen any better lens for such purposes. It shows impressively little light fall-off in the corners, nice colors and is razor sharp at close and middle distances. However, at infinity the things change a bit. It seems optimized for shorter distances and is not the best performer at infinity. I have found that the Canon 16-35 4.0 IS is clearly superior to the Zeiss 15mm when both are at infinity and the Canon is at 4.0 and the Zeiss at 2.8.
I also had the opportunity to test the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 III against the Zeiss 15mm 2.8 at different distances and with both at 2.8. It turned out that the Canon performed better at infinity, but that it also had more light fall-off with darker corners. At middle and short distances they were pretty equal, but the Zeiss 15 mm remained better in the corners.
Have to agree with you: the main purpose for my Zeiss 15mm is for indoor photography/scene investigations (when I need "the whole room" on the image).
I seldom use it for landscape because its extreme width makes you feel "too far away" ... and the 20mm is the lens I go to more often. (Not to mention the latter is lighter.)
I've never tested the 15mm formally, but I think you're right in the sense the extreme detail and micro-contrast are found up-close, to mid-distance, where the Zeiss 15mm excels.
Never tried the Canon 16-35 III, but (according to LenScore) the Zeiss 15mm beats it pretty handily in most respects:
RESOLVING POWER
Zeiss - 1078
Canon - 871
CONTRAST
Zeiss - 1180
Canon - 809
COLOR
Zeiss - 921
Canon - 910
BOKEH
Zeiss - 975
Canon - 747
STAR
Zeiss - 941
Canon - 765
DISTORTION
Zeiss - 934
Canon - 761
FALLOFF
Zeiss - 789
Canon - 615
FLARE
Zeiss - 864
Canon - 730
LaCA
Zeiss - 889
Canon - 764
LoCA
Zeiss - 973
Canon - 963
TOTAL SCORE
Zeiss - 974
Canon - 804
They don't really go into whether this is close or far; however, the likelihood is these are lab results and, for this reason, measured at a comparatively-close distance.
-
I can personally recommend the Zeiss 21/2.8 as a "landscape 20". It's imaging performance towers above the 20mm Nikkors I have used (20/3.5 Ais, 20/2.8 Ais) except maybe the 21/4 mirror lockup Nikkor. It is larger and heavier than the Nikkors, however.
agreed :-)
Zeiss 21mm Distagon f2.8 on Nikon D500 ISO 100, f/16
-
The Zeiss 15mm 2.8 Distagon is extremely well suited for architecture and interiors. I have never seen any better lens for such purposes. It shows impressively little light fall-off in the corners, nice colors and is razor sharp at close and middle distances. However, at infinity the things change a bit. It seems optimized for shorter distances and is not the best performer at infinity. I have found that the Canon 16-35 4.0 IS is clearly superior to the Zeiss 15mm when both are at infinity and the Canon is at 4.0 and the Zeiss at 2.8.
I also had the opportunity to test the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 III against the Zeiss 15mm 2.8 at different distances and with both at 2.8. It turned out that the Canon performed better at infinity, but that it also had more light fall-off with darker corners. At middle and short distances they were pretty equal, but the Zeiss 15 mm remained better in the corners.
Interesting. What optical attributes would cause such discrepancies with distance in the IQ of close-medium vs near infinity subjects ? Are on IQ determinants not invariant in optics of this quality?
thanks
woody
-
Optical performance across the entire focusing range is never invariant. The designers maximise performance according to set criteria, so the fact a lens is better for near or far distance comes as little surprise.
-
I've never tested the 15mm formally, but I think you're right in the sense the extreme detail and micro-contrast are found up-close, to mid-distance, where the Zeiss 15mm excels.
Never tried the Canon 16-35 III, but (according to LenScore) the Zeiss 15mm beats it pretty handily in most respects:
[...]
TOTAL SCORE
Zeiss - 974
Canon - 804
They don't really go into whether this is close or far; however, the likelihood is these are lab results and, for this reason, measured at a comparatively-close distance.
In fact, I almost returned my Zeiss 15mm 2.8, until I discovered that it was indeed brilliant at short and medium subject distances. Now when I have understood that it is superior at the distances for which it is optimized I am content with that since architecture and indoor photo is something that deserves a dedicated lens.
However, it must be stated that the Zeiss Distagon 15mm is not superior when it comes to infinity. In that respect, the numbers that seem to illustrate that the Zeiss is generally superior are misleading. I recommend the Zeiss, but there are better alternatives for landscape and subjects at infinity.
I and two friends tried the Nikkor 14-24 2.8 AF-S, the Zeiss Distagon 15mm 2.8 and the Canon 16-35mm 4.0 IS together against a landscape at infinity. All three lenses were set at their max aperture. That means the Canon was at 4.0 whereas the Zeiss and the Nikkor were at 2.8.
The Zeiss gave the weakest rendering of detail, then came the Nikkor, and the Canon 16-35 4.0 IS was superior.
I concluded that the days when Canon users need to use the Nikkor 14-24 in order to get a true UWA zoom are gone. The Canon 16-35mm 2.8 III is also an excellent performer at infinity, but I am afraid that it shows significantly more light fall-off in the corners than the Nikkor 14-24 which is admirable in that department. It would have been interesting to have the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 III together with the others above.
-
... next page
-
And another (20mm AI-S on D810) ...
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4506/37364036444_8967f92fa3_h.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/YVJshU)The Narrows (https://flic.kr/p/YVJshU) by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
-
I think the 20mm f/2.8 AI-S is as good as the Zeiss 15mm Distagon T*.
They are my trusted, ultra-wide tools ...
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4480/26305240239_3892e8dcb2_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/G5vesP)
Dana in The Narrows ... (https://flic.kr/p/G5vesP) by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4506/38049089892_870d1c1c99_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZYgwPf)
The Narrows (https://flic.kr/p/ZYgwPf) by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr