Has anyone seen the 18mm?

[Chip Chipowski]

http://www.nikkor.com/story/0055/

I am guessing the 18mm is not forgotten amongst this forum.

[Bjørn J]

I have seen it and barely tried it, aesthetically it is one of the most beautiful Nikkors ever made.

[chris dees]

I had one for a short time. Sold it to a collector.

[Jakov Minić]

Erik has one I believe and he used it quite a lot. Now with the new 20/1.8 I doubt that it's very interesting...

[Bjørn Rørslett]

You are mistaken on both accounts.

I'm the owner of a superb 18 mm f/4 AI, and it is one of my favourite lenses for various tasks such as landscapes and UV. Modern lenses might be a tad sharper,  but the 18 has its special 'rounded' and mellow drawing that I just love. Equally useful for UV, IR, or visible light photography.

Some examples (visible light: Nikon Df, D3S, UV: nikon D3200).

[Jakov Minić]

Dear Bjørn, can you explain what exactly the round and mellow drawing mean?
I am looking at the images and I just don't see the round and mellow parts?
Thanks

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Some lenses have a high contrast ,some have low. Some lenses are very sharp, some are less sharp. Some lenses render coliurs vividly satured, some are lower in colour saturation. and so on. Taken together, all these make up the character of the lens.

If you shot the AFS 20 mm f/1.8 and the 18 mm f/4 AI side-by-side, the difference would be *very* obvious. Not to say one is wrong and the other is right, they are just different. Knowing what these differences are makes it easier to use the lens in an optimal manner.

The attached photo shows the character of the 18 pretty well.

[bobfriedman]

i own two... mostly for IR..

Nikon D200 ,Nikkor 18mm f/4 AI
1/160s f/8.0 at 18.0mm iso20


Nikon D200 ,Nikkor 18mm f/4 AI
1/250s f/8.0 at 18.0mm iso200

[pluton]

Agreed that the Nikon 18/4 is aesthetically one of the best looking Nikkors ever made, and is still a useful lens today.  I
 recently had the Nikon 18/4 and the Zeiss ZF2 18/3.5 at the same time, and felt, for budgetary reasons, that I should only keep one of them.
Interestingly, while the 30-year-newer design Zeiss was contrastier and had greater color saturation, the actual resolution(at f/4) at the edges of the 24x36 frame...in my test... was about equal. 
I chose to keep the Zeiss because it had a fairly efficient lens shade, while the Nikon has a hood that functions only as a retainer for series 9 filters.

[Jakov Minić]

Thank you all for your explanations, but I must be incredibly stubborn, meaning, unless I see a direct comparison between the 18/4 and 20/1.8 I will not get it. 
I am not saying that the 18/4 is not a great lens, I am certain that it is and the photos that are posted prove it.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I *know* you are stubborn Jakov ....

When opportunity arises I'll shoot the 18/4 and 20/1.8 side by side, process images similar and then you should observe  what the description is about.

In the mean while, rest assured the two of them are sufficiently different to make keeping both a good choice.

[Jørgen Ramskov]

I would like to thank Jakov for being stubborn

[Jakov Minić]

I *know* you are stubborn Jakov ....

When opportunity arises I'll shoot the 18/4 and 20/1.8 side by side, process images similar and then you should observe  what the description is about.

In the mean while, rest assured the two of them are sufficiently different to make keeping both a good choice.

I never said that keeping both was a bad choice. My concerns were related to whether or not one should buy both

[Jakov Minić]

I would like to thank Jakov for being stubborn

Thanks, Jørgen

[Erik Lund]

IMHO Jakov is persistent - completly different than stubborn...