A story of old and new lenses

[ianwatson]

You just need a better lawyer, Mongo 

There is something about keeping things simple that is very agreeable. It is as though it helps the equipment to get out of the way and let the photographer see. Experience is telling me that all I need is a 35mm and something in the 85-105mm range. Wider and longer can be fun and useful. However, as long as I have those two lenses I am quite content.

[Frank Fremerey]

my short comment:

1. small size, light weight and being used to operating even without looking through the VF in hyper focal manner are very good arguments for the 3.5Ai

2. I sold my 1.4/24G after acquiring the 1.8/20G. That says a lot. The 1.4/24G was a lens I bought in 2011 and loved it very much. 2000€ initially were a pain but worth every cent. Very heavy lens. The 1.8/20G has the same IQ in my book, a little less magic wide open and it is just the critical amount wider that comes in handy in many situations. Highly recommended! Give it another try and take your time.

PS: the performance in the near field is stunning too.

[Frank Fremerey]

Quite agree with you Akira. However, even though too slow for astrology work, Mongo has managed quite reasonable (but not great) astro images on a very good , clear, bright sky night. Mongo has a 35mm f1.4 Art series Sigma which is a truly great lens. Although wider than he would like, it may have to do for some of the astro work. It is almost impossible to have a lens for so many different purposes without crowding yourself out of your home with equipment - and some you only use once a year, if that. Once upon a time really good photographers seem to make do with a 35 or 50 mm lens for 80% of their work. Where have those days gone...?

Pete thanks for the additional information.

One of our members managed to shoot all of his professional and private shots for one year with one lens: 85mm

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I often use the 20/1.8 for indoor images, architecture as well as events. I find it to have the best autofocus of those Nikon wide angles I've used, so focusing is easy and reliable even wide open. This is in contrast to 14-24 which is excellent but sometimes its AF misses. I often include people in my images of interiors and focusing on the people is important when shooting at full aperture. Then I can also freeze the movement. I never liked blurry cloud people in sharp surroundings style of interior image.

The 20/1.8 is contrasty and very resistsnt to flare and ghosting. I think the darker appearance is simply due to the high contrast. The bokeh is ok but in that respect, I prefer the 24/1.4 AF-S. Also the 24/1.4 has a more "delightful/playful" character to the images whereas the 20/1.8 is more factual. The autofocusing of the 24/1.4 is less certain than with the 20/1.8 and care must be taken. Sometimes at events I find I need the extra light of the f/1.4 to get nice tonality and less noise, in dim spaces.

IMO the 20/1.8 Nikkor is a great lens.

[David H. Hartman]

My advice is buy the AF-S 20/1.8G ED but definitely keep the 20/3.5 AI. I bought the AF-S f/1.8 due to problems I had focusing my 20/2.8 AIS at mid distance in modestly poor light on my D800. I had to focused using live view hand held where I could not use a tripod.

The AF-S 20/1.8 beats the AI 20/3.5 is almost any way but not when pointed into the sun or sometimes just clouds with the sun behind. The AI f/3.5 is wonderfully free of flare and ghost even with the sun included in the frame and gives fine sun stars at f/11 and f/16. I don't find the weight of the AF-S 20/1.8 a problem but the size is not an advantage.

Anyway my advice is buy the AF-S 20/1.8G ED but keep the 20/3.5 AI for harsh, into the sun shooting.

Best,

Dave Hartman

[Airy]

Ever considered the Sigma 20/1.4 ?
I own the 24/1.4 and like it a lot (more than the 35/1.4)

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Ever considered the Sigma 20/1.4 ?

Too heavy for me. I want high quality lenses but ideally of such weight that the total weight of all the lenses I need to shoot an event or trip is reasonable.

I have a few lenses that are grossly overweight and try to avoid further purchases along those lines where possible.

[Frank Fremerey]

Too heavy for me. I want high quality lenses but ideally of such weight that the total weight of all the lenses I need to shoot an event or trip is reasonable.

I have a few lenses that are grossly overweight and try to avoid further purchases along those lines where possible.

that is one of the reasons I parted with the 1.4/24G. A whole day shooting it at events, needing the extra fps OR battery capacity to power me through the day with a grip and ugly downlights with a necessity to use one or two speedlights.

In the end my arms always felt like a big ape's arms hanging to the floor and no consecutive day to be considered.

The 1.8/20G is big but light and the performance is less magic and more sober, but ... that is often what I want and what my customers want too.

PS: Same (weight) reasoning goes for 1.4/105E compared to 1.8/85G. But: in this case both are magic in their own right.

[Mongo]

Ian - thanks…there is a lot of sense in what you say. Mongo unfortunately needs a long lens fir birding. However, for general photography, what you say is right.

Frank and Ilkka - thanks for there the real background info on the 20mm f1.8 and other experiences you have had with possible other alternatives.

David, Mongo also appreciates your knowledge and experience of both lenses but to keep both may defeat the purpose of keeping things light, small and transportable.

Airy - thank you for the advice. Mongo has considered all options including Sigma offerings and zooms. The 24 f1.4 is too heavy and bulky as are all the other wide angle offerings. From what Mongo has read, if he were to buy the 24mm, it would be the f1.8 version. In any event , the 20mm is, so far,  better for the purpose if Mongo is to buy any substitute lens for his current 20mm f3.5

[Akira]

I've used AF-S 24/1.8, and it performed even a bit better than the already highly regarded 20/1.8G.  If the size is acceptable, I would recommend it highly.

Sorry for offering too many options!  Choices, choices! 

[Mongo]

I've used AF-S 24/1.8, and it performed even a bit better than the already highly regarded 20/1.8G.  If the size is acceptable, I would recommend it highly.

Sorry for offering too many options!  Choices, choices! 

No apologies please Akira - all information and advice is always gratefully accepted. Your have also now confirmed Mongo's understanding of the 24mm f1.8 if it were to come into consideration. Thanks again.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Though I say the 20mm f/3.5 AI is good, chances are I’ll only carry it when I intend not to need it. When I really want a 20mm I’ll bring the 1.8. Still figuring out what to do about the 20mm UD. It is such a beautiful piece of metal and glass...

[Roland Vink]

Note: the AFS 20/1.8 has 77mm filter (not 72mm as stated in your first post). The AFS 24/1.8 has 72mm filter so a bit smaller. Apart from that, the two lenses are almost identical size and weight. See http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#20
Many photographers find 24mm as the goldilocks of wide-angles - wide enough for that "wide" look, but not too wide - just right. But everyone is different. The choice might depend on what other lenses you regularly use...

[Mongo]

Jack if you kept the two lenses , you would really need to know which one to take out with you on the day. That is not always possible to know in advance. Taking two in not the best option.

Roland, thanks for the correction but either 72mm or 77mm would be still a hassle to have to find and buy filters etc. Already have all the stuff for the 52mm f3.5. Would only be viable to do all this if the 20mm f1.8 was a compelling “have to buy” lens over the one Mongo already has. Not sure Mongo is there yet.

As far as the 20mm v 24mm, as you say they are both about the same weight, size and probably IQ. When you think that Mongo was once using a 14mm rectilinear lens and the 20mm, it is not hard to see that the 20mm is probably as narrow as Mongo will go. Also, you can always crop to 24mm or less if you need to. BTW, the 14mm died a couple of years ago and was never replaced becuase, like the 20mm, neither were being used enough. It seems very long periods between uses for these lenses. If not for the upcoming rare and remote area trip, Mongo would not be having this discussion.

[Frank Fremerey]

one more aspect: I always carry two bodies except for recreational / meditative camera use. The 20/1.8G is one of the lenses I love on the D500 as well as on the D850.

Only not for group shots indoors where I prefer the 15fish of the 8-15mm zoom, because faces in the corners do not bent like they are with the 20mm rectangular. The fishzoom is a fantastic versatile lens. It grows to my heart the more I use it. It is small but relatively heavy.