IQ of Nikkor 20mm f2.8 AIS / 24mm f2 AIS

The 20/2.8 AIS is fine. It is not excellent. I used one on a D200, D300, F3. I sold it. I prefer the 16-35/4 G zoom and the 17-35/2.8 zoom until I have to carry the camera around. I only use the zooms on a tripod.

I believe the Fujinon 18/2 XF is better than the 20/2.8 (after Fuji's lens correction parameters are applied). I only mention this as a comparison.

I also have the 24/2.8 AIS, not the 2, and the 2.8 is very prone to flare. My impressin is the older coatings for the wide angle F mounts are much less flare resistant than newer lenses.

If I had to choose I would use the 24/2.8 (first choice) or the 20/2.8 AIS lenses.
 
Try the 20mm f/3.5 AIS

Try the 20mm f/3.5 AIS

All the Nikon wide angles have barrel distortion, and softening up of the image into the corners unless well stopped down.

I also experienced wicked flaring with the 24mm f/2.8 AI. I still own the lens, but I've often thought of selling it off for that reason. It is definitely not a contre-jour lens.

The 20mm f/3.5 on the other hand is completely resistant to flare. You can shoot it right into the sun without a problem. I often did so when I visited Arizona. It is also tiny and very light.

Image wise, I think that the rangefinder CV 21 f/4 is better in terms of less distortion and sharper corners. The Zeiss Biogon 21 f/2.8 M is also much better in IQ than the Nikkor.
 
kshapero said:
I had the 24/2 and it is NOT one of Nikon's better lenses.
Click to expand...

I sold the 24 f/2 several years ago. Mine wasn't very good. I still have the 20 f/2.8. I always thought the 20 f/2.8 was fine till I saw the chromatic aberration on the D200.
 
Old style wide, fixed Nikon lenses are all kind of similar. They have a bit of moustache distortion, are reasonably sharp, and have some low-contrast haze (spherical aberration) when opened up. The same guy must have designed them all. But, they still shoot comparably to today's gear at f/5.6 or f/8. The larger apertures are "available", but not as good as today's high end lenses, particularly in the edges. (In practical terms, I don't shoot wide-open with wides that often and I'm not obsessed with corner sharpness that much with wides, either, so they work. They're nice and small, too.)

Since you have 2 AF bodies, I'd recommend a 20/2.8D or 24/2.8D. Can't really go wrong; the later ones are no sharper but seem to have a bit better contrast when opened up.

My biggest problem is finding a good used one. I traded off a 24/2.8D with my N80 awhile ago and I tried to replace it this summer. The new one would not perform consistently, so I sent it back. Test any that you buy. I can't tell just by looking at the lens whether it's any good (both were very pretty).

- Charlie
 
I think the reason the Nikon 24mm f2 gets reported as being soft is because it is so very difficult to focus. The focus throw is extremely short - to move focus from 5 feet to infinity is about a 1/4 inch of rotation - very easy to miss the focus by several feet. And most folks trying this lens are coming from the 24mm f2.8 which has a much longer focus throw. If you actually manage to focus properly, the f2 lens is quite good, with less vignetting than the f2.8 version.
 
Larry H-L said:
I think the reason the Nikon 24mm f2 gets reported as being soft is because it is so very difficult to focus. The focus throw is extremely short - to move focus from 5 feet to infinity is about a 1/4 inch of rotation - very easy to miss the focus by several feet. And most folks trying this lens are coming from the 24mm f2.8 which has a much longer focus throw. If you actually manage to focus properly, the f2 lens is quite good, with less vignetting than the f2.8 version.
Click to expand...

This may be so but I just didn't take to the 24 f/2. I now have a 24 Lux and love it. Of course I was focusing the Nikon on an FM2 or F3 and the Lux on a Leica M6 or M9 - different focusing systems.

Tom
 
I had both lenses at the same time and wasn't impressed with the 24 f2 and sold it for a 24 f2.8 which was much better. There were actuay three different optical designs of the 24 f2.8. I had all three and still have the v1 which is good on film but not impressive with digital. The 20 f2.8 is very good in the center and ok at the edges wide open. I've used several different 20s and never been blown away by any. The latest 24 f2.8 is the best of the wides. Also had a 15 f3.5 and used it a great deal for interiors of motor coaches. It's reasonably sharp stopped down but internal reflections are a killer.

The current G series zooms are much better. My 16-35 is exceptional.
 
I'll also mention the Zeiss 25mm f2.8 because it's nearly the same focal lenth. A friend and I did some tests comparing the Zeiss to the Nikkor 24mm f2.8 (admittedly not the one you're asking about, although it has been mentioned in this thread). The Nikkor 24mm f2.8 lens was definitely softer in the corners than the Zeiss. After this testing, my friend promptly sold his Nikkor 24mm f2.8 and bought the Zeiss to replace it.

I've used the Zeiss both with my FM2N and my D300 and have been very pleased with the images.

Ellen
 
Not as wide but I strongly suspect that the Nikkor 28/2.8 is better than any Nikkor 20 or 24. It is a stellar lens with a floating element and wonderful rendering.
 
Whoops

Whoops

back alley said:
please read the heading of the forum before posting...please!
i have moved this thread instead of just deleting it...this time.
Click to expand...

Sorry 'bout that, jusy saw 'Optics and Lenses' and posted. Think I must have had a 'senior moment' 😕 Promise I'll be a bit more attentive next time!

Many thanks for those that responded, knew that I could rely on my fellow RFF's.
 
semilog said:
Not as wide but I strongly suspect that the Nikkor 28/2.8 is better than any Nikkor 20 or 24. It is a stellar lens with a floating element and wonderful rendering.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that the 28/2.8 ais Nikkor may be better also. You have to be careful though as only the 28/2.8 "ais" Nikkor has the floating lens element. It is also the closest focusing of their 28/2.8 manual focus models.

Bob
 
x-ray said:
The current G series zooms are much better. My 16-35 is exceptional.
Click to expand...

The new zooms are wonderful, but huge. (I'd like to see the 20/2.8 refreshed, like the 28 & 85 1.8Gs, as a small 'general purpose' superwide. I'd be very happy with a 20/50/85 set on one of the new digital bodies.)

"G" lenses are ok on the F6 and F100, but not the F4. If there was any intent for the lens to be a good bridge-to-digital (i.e. useable on F4 thru D800) I'd consider the expensive manual focus Zeiss 21/2.8, as others have mentioned. Else, see if you're satisfied with the inexpensive Nikon 20s or 24s.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CandidChronicles
Old, cheap manual 50mm to pair to my Nikon Zf: Nikon, Canon..
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
wlewisiii
W
D
A pristine 1960 Jupiter 3 with focusing problem.
Replies
15
Views
872
dexdog
D
A
Anyone ever had a Summitar with a mismatch of parts and gotten it to work?
Replies
9
Views
558
wlewisiii
W
p.giannakis
Agrrr... AF Nikkor 50f/1.4 delamination
Replies
6
Views
579
Muggins
Muggins
A
Your underrated lenses
5 6 7
Replies
133
Views
6K
Dayrell bishop
D
Back
Top Bottom