20mm for landscape

[Airy]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

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.

[Airy]

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.

[richardHaw]

for a very long time, the 20mm f/2.8 AF-D was the only wide lens that I use for landscapes
it was good but no match for the 16-35mm

[JKoerner007]

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.

[John Geerts]

Yes, 20mm  can be ideal for landscapes

Here the Drina river on the border between Bosnia and Serbia  with the 20mm f/4  Ai

[David H. Hartman]

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

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

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.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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 :

[Jim Covello]

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?

[David H. Hartman]

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

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

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.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

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.