Nikkor 20mm f3.5 vs 2.8

FrankS

FrankS

Registered User
Local time
5:53 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
19,348
Any thoughts? The f3.5 is a bit slower but is a bit smaller, lighter, and uses 52mm filters. Is the f2.8 version much better optically? Anyone with experience with both?
 
I'll just sell my seldom used Summicron 50 M mount and keep both 20's until I make up my own mind. I was just hoping to hear from someone who had gone through that process already.
 
Last edited:
I'm probably not the best guy to answer since I have not only the 3.5 and the 2.8 but also the uncommon f4 version. The reason is that each has overlapping strengths, so some areas 2 lenses are better in one area. The 3.5 has less flare and ghosting of all, 4 is close 2nd and the 2.8 is side by side less good. Sharpness is around the same, the 4 is very sharp and equal of the 2.8 at 5.6, the 3.5 seems less sharp for distance/landscape but really good closer in, which the 2.8 gets very close to matching. If you really need the speed and can deal with the added flare get the 2.8. If you need better distance get the 4 or 2.8, if you need better closer in get the 3.5 or 2.8. Sorry, thats the puzzle, no one 20 does it all exceptionally, which is why I have 3 of them! I do find that I've been using the F4 model quite a bit lately on my D3.
 
The original was the Nikkor-UD 20/3.5. It is big, uses 72mm filters. I have one, and it is a good lens. I also have the 20/2.8 AF-Nikkor, quite sharp. I do not have the in-betweens.
 
The two Nikkor 20mm lenses to have are the 20/4 AI or the 20/3.5 AIS. Either are spectacular. The 20/2.8 is larger and not any sharper and the 20/3.5 UD is TO BIG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom