willie_901
Veteran
I also find the 16-35/4 G to be excellent. Because of its size, I think of it as a studio lens. I can conceive of an event where I actually carry it around, but I only use it on a tripod.
IQ of Nikkor 20mm f2.8 AIS / 24mm f2 AIS
- Thread starter F6Roger
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 26
- Views 8K
kshapero
South Florida Man
Anybody had a chance to try the Voigtlander 28/2.8 pancake?
Elektrojänis
Established
Wide open or close to wide open the corners on the 24mm f2 AIS can look a bit "dirty"... Like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/40747751@N08/8343400010/in/photostream
At least my sample of it does that.
At least my sample of it does that.
jaredangle
Photojournalist
The 24mm f/2 is an older fast lens design, so it's going to suffer in resolution in order to achieve that extra stop of light gathering ability – think of it as being similar to a 50mm f/1.4 being less sharp at f/1.4 than a 50mm f/2 is at f/2.
The 20mm is sharper in the center, but flare-prone. I have an AF version. The f/3.5 and f/4 versions are smaller, sharper and cheaper, and the flare issue can be solved with either a lens hood, or my personally preferred method of holding my hand above the lens to shield it from stray light.
IQ will be no different between those three film bodies since it's the same film rather than varying digital sensors, but your metering is going to be better on the F4 and the F6 – the F100's metering with AI lenses is more tricky.
You'll notice some chromatic aberration with those lenses when you move over to a digital body – both the 20mm f/2.8 and the 20mm setting of my 20-35mm f/2.8 give me the occasional hassle with purple fringing but it's not that bad. The newer 17-35mm, 16-35mm and 14-24mm lenses will all perform better at f/2.8 (f/4 for the 16-35mm) if you can swing the cost, weight, and clunkiness.
sparrow6224
Well-known
With the exception of the Ai and AIS 28/2 and the AIS (NOT Ai) 28/2.8, Nikon's old manual focus wides were not exceptionally good. I have been through 4 copies of the 24/2.8 (one AF, the others Ai and AIS) and sold all of them. However, that said, while it's not mind blowing or anything, my 20mm f/3.5 AIS -- mentioned above by Robert Lai -- is really a favorite and wonderfully sized with 52mm filter. Of all the lenses discussed under 28mm, excepting the $$$Zeiss of course, the 20/3.5 is the one I'd recommend.
For 24's -- Nikon's can't touch Minolta Rokkor's 24/2.8 or Contax Carl Zeiss 25/2.8 or OM Zuiko's 24/2 or Leica R Elmarit 24/2.8.... (essentially the Minolta MD Rokkor) -- those are the competitors I have used.
I agree with all here that the new(ish) 16-35mm f/4G is outstanding. It's been criticized as soft at 35mm but I haven't seen it. Even if it's true, it's so sharp and rich in color from 18 to 30 it doesn't much matter. It's sharp at 16mm too but quite rrrouuunddd. (Barrel distortion, that is.) Still this is not a lens for your MF camera. For that I'd go either with the 20/3.5 or that Zeiss 25.
For 24's -- Nikon's can't touch Minolta Rokkor's 24/2.8 or Contax Carl Zeiss 25/2.8 or OM Zuiko's 24/2 or Leica R Elmarit 24/2.8.... (essentially the Minolta MD Rokkor) -- those are the competitors I have used.
I agree with all here that the new(ish) 16-35mm f/4G is outstanding. It's been criticized as soft at 35mm but I haven't seen it. Even if it's true, it's so sharp and rich in color from 18 to 30 it doesn't much matter. It's sharp at 16mm too but quite rrrouuunddd. (Barrel distortion, that is.) Still this is not a lens for your MF camera. For that I'd go either with the 20/3.5 or that Zeiss 25.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I have the 24/2 AIS and use it routinely on a D3 in relatively low light (1/60 f:2) interior group shots. There is a little chromatic fringing using this lens wide open, but I have never had any one complain about the final prints.
Edit: I recently bought an older pre-AI 24/2.8 off of someone on RFF, I have not used that lens enough to form an opinion about it. I think my lens of choice in this focal length would be the Leica 24/2.8 Asph with the Zeiss 24/2.8 as a close second. Sometimes though, I am just using the Nikon and would rather have the extra stop of exposure rather than anything else.
I have the 20/2.8 AF -- in between the AIS and the D -- and it vignettes pretty badly until about f:8 on the D3. It would not be my lens of choice for digital at least. On the F4, the 20 worked well with film and I would print 11x14s full frame to the corners when the lens was wide open. Edit: once again, I think the M lenses in this category -- particularly the lovely Zeiss 21/2.8 -- have the edge here in terms of vignetting and distortion. I would not choose Nikon's 20/2.8 to work in digital unless I had no other choice.
Edit: I recently bought an older pre-AI 24/2.8 off of someone on RFF, I have not used that lens enough to form an opinion about it. I think my lens of choice in this focal length would be the Leica 24/2.8 Asph with the Zeiss 24/2.8 as a close second. Sometimes though, I am just using the Nikon and would rather have the extra stop of exposure rather than anything else.
I have the 20/2.8 AF -- in between the AIS and the D -- and it vignettes pretty badly until about f:8 on the D3. It would not be my lens of choice for digital at least. On the F4, the 20 worked well with film and I would print 11x14s full frame to the corners when the lens was wide open. Edit: once again, I think the M lenses in this category -- particularly the lovely Zeiss 21/2.8 -- have the edge here in terms of vignetting and distortion. I would not choose Nikon's 20/2.8 to work in digital unless I had no other choice.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
I've got an AF-D version of the 24/f2.8 (not f2) and it's a great lens when paired with my D3, F5 and (manually focused) F3. However, I wanted something wider and bought a 20mm/f2.8 AIS recently - hence the interest in this thread.
I haven't had many shots taken with ot processed yet but, what I have, seem fine - but we haven't had much sun in the UK since I bought it, so I havemn't been able to test its response to contre-jour lighting / flare.
I haven't had many shots taken with ot processed yet but, what I have, seem fine - but we haven't had much sun in the UK since I bought it, so I havemn't been able to test its response to contre-jour lighting / flare.
Similar threads
