Best 20mm for Nikon F?

[Vics]

I love my 24mm 2.8, and it's making me want to expand my horizons. Which 20mm Nikkor do you like and why? NAI would be OK. All my lenses are old like me.

 

[kxl]

I can only talk about the AI lenses. I have never owned or shot any of the non-AI lenses.

20/3.5 AI - great for close focus, especially when you use a K1 extension ring for wide-angel macros. This was my primary use for this lens. AT distance, not the greatest, even stopped down. This lens is flare free.

20/4 UI - tiny and sharp for distance. So-so for subjects 10 feet or less from you. Flare is controlled but not flare free as the 20/3.5 AI.

20/2.8 AIS - sharp at distance, but weird distortion pattern.

Voigtlander 20/3.5 - this is the one I own today. It is a tiny pancake lens, sharp at distance and at near distances. Flare is well-controlled, but distortion about the same par as the 20/2.8 AIS. WHat this has that the Nikons don't have is the edge in ergonomics -- focus is buttery smooth compared to the Nikon 20's I owned (probably because I bought the CV new, while the Nikons were old). I do highly recommend this lens.

Since you already have the 20/2.8, one option may be to find an old Nikon 20/3.5 AI and get a K1 extension ring. Being able to shoot inches away from your subject while retaining that wide field of view is fun.

Good luck!

 

[furbs]

I love my 20 f4 AI. The f4 non-AI is basically the same. Possibly the lightest lens I own and a joy to shoot on my F2.

 

[dbarnes]

Had an early 20/4, back in the day. Wasn't impressed with edge sharpness. Preferred the 20/3.5 AIS.

 

[dave lackey]

Interesting to me what the choices are and the recommendations. All I have for my F2 is the 50 1.8 lens.

If I could get better with the squirelly meter, I would use it more. Maybe I just need a mint julep while shooting?😛

 

[raid]

I have a 21/4 Nikkor which I like using on my F2. It is a nonretro-focus lens, like the RF version.

 

[Rob-F]

I have and use the 20/4 AI. I photograph from 6 feet to infinity, and have had no complaints with its performance.

I have the 18/4. It is compact and easy to use, but is too hard to use with filters. With its large, deeply curved front element, it has very uniform illumination across the field. I had to learn its limitations distortion-wise: It has pronounced mustache distortion.

And I have the 15/3.5. Now, there is a low-distortion wide lens! It's heavy, but not too heavy. It takes little bayonet filters in the rear.

P.S.: Another thing about their large, deeply curved front elements is that they both flare and make ghost images like crazy!

 

[Vics]

I can only talk about the AI lenses. I have never owned or shot any of the non-AI lenses.

20/3.5 AI - great for close focus, especially when you use a K1 extension ring for wide-angel macros. This was my primary use for this lens. AT distance, not the greatest, even stopped down. This lens is flare free.

20/4 UI - tiny and sharp for distance. So-so for subjects 10 feet or less from you. Flare is controlled but not flare free as the 20/3.5 AI.

20/2.8 AIS - sharp at distance, but weird distortion pattern.

Voigtlander 20/3.5 - this is the one I own today. It is a tiny pancake lens, sharp at distance and at near distances. Flare is well-controlled, but distortion about the same par as the 20/2.8 AIS. WHat this has that the Nikons don't have is the edge in ergonomics -- focus is buttery smooth compared to the Nikon 20's I owned (probably because I bought the CV new, while the Nikons were old). I do highly recommend this lens.

Since you already have the 20/2.8, one option may be to find an old Nikon 20/3.5 AI and get a K1 extension ring. Being able to shoot inches away from your subject while retaining that wide field of view is fun.

Good luck!

I have a 24mm 2.8, not a 20. Thanks for your very detailed info.

 

[lcpr]

I quite like my CV 20/3.5 too:

 

[Vics]

What about the difference between the 3.5 Nikkor UD and the more modern ai version? I'm attracted by the 52mm filter size (and the lower price at KEH).

ICPR: Those CV pictures look fantastic!

 

[Vics]

I have a 21/4 Nikkor which I like using on my F2. It is a nonretro-focus lens, like the RF version.

Raid, Leave it to you to have a variant I'd never heard of. Are they rare? Do you have to lock the mirror up?

 

[raid]

Hi Vic,
They are not that rare. Yes, you must use the mirror lock-up setting, and then the F2 becomes like a RF, so to speak. There is no mirror vibration, and the lens is small. The RF version is very rare and very expensive. Same optics, but you get RF focusing. Mine is the "cheap" SLR version. It is from 1958, I think.

 

[Noserider]

Yes the 21 needs a locked up mirror.
The differences of the UD vs the AI and Ais is more than a good chunk of time between formulations; a chunk of time that saw pretty radical improvements in all sorts of photographic manufacture and technology. Glass types, multi-coating, faster and more complicated ray-tracing from faster and better computers, all contributed to the improvements between these two lenses. Don't forget the 20mm f/4 came in between these twentys and was on its own was a huge departure from the UD, super small light and only 1/2 stop slower and excellent at mid to far distances. IMO the 3.5 Ais was a close range optimized design, with the next 2.8 Ais being a compromise between those two with the CRC. Nikon has an article about the 20mm f4 vs the UD at http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/20/index.htm

 

[raid]

The 21/4 is good for B&W photography. Not using the mirror maybe is a good thing as it always gives you no mirror slap.

 

[Highway 61]

Nikkor Ai-S 20/3.5 head and shoulders.

Sharper than the Nikkor Ai-S 20/2.8 in the corners and with way less distorsion all over the image.

 

[Vics]

Yes the 21 needs a locked up mirror.
The differences of the UD vs the AI and Ais is more than a good chunk of time between formulations; a chunk of time that saw pretty radical improvements in all sorts of photographic manufacture and technology. Glass types, multi-coating, faster and more complicated ray-tracing from faster and better computers, all contributed to the improvements between these two lenses. Don't forget the 20mm f/4 came in between these twentys and was on its own was a huge departure from the UD, super small light and only 1/2 stop slower and excellent at mid to far distances. IMO the 3.5 Ais was a close range optimized design, with the next 2.8 Ais being a compromise between those two with the CRC. Nikon has an article about the 20mm f4 vs the UD at http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/20/index.htm

Thanks very much for your comments and advice. I'll read the article with interest.

 

[Noserider]

Well I'm not sure it will help anything but your GAS, you'll want to pick up a couple of 20's and see what the fuss is about. I have every one but the UD, although I did find a couple years ago and passed. I think the Ais 3.5 is a really good choice for just one, the straight into the sun at f22 is a nice look, it does close up very well and its sharp. Some copies are better than others; inside the lens elements are held in place with retaining rings and some of those have handmade alignment marks, in the process of cleaning or hard use those can move off. I regained sharpness on one of mine by re-torquing to the alignment mark, seems the previous owner had it cleaned at one point and after several years of hard use with lots of small airplane flights that alignment mark was 1-2mm off but enough for me to notice on film. I'd have any 20mm checked pretty closely.

 

[Vics]

Good advice, Noserider. Do you know a good tech here on the mainland?

 

[Noserider]

Prob I'd use Authorized Photo Service but only if something was amiss. They seem to do a good job on older gear, and lenses are lenses.

 

[sparrow6224]

The Nikkor-UD 20/3.5 is the period-correct lens for the camera and a very nice performer. After that the Ais 20/3.5 is by far the best option.
Bjorn Rorslett is smart and reliable on these lenses:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html