20mm f2.8 afd and D700

<p>When I first got my D300 I had the 20mm f 2.8. I didn't have sharpness issues (of course it wasn't full frame) be it struck me as being bulky and heavy for what amounted to a 30mm lens on the D300. I sold it and get better results for my Tokina 12-24 and a Tokina 17mm f/3.5. Yeah, I know they aren't high on the list of some photographers but they do a darn good job given what I paid for them.</p>

<p>Wayne -<br>

Yes, I have rarely used my 20/2.8 on my D300 for the same reasons you mention. It's an entirely different lens on FX. <br>

My low-cost, light weight kit for my impending D700 is the 20/2.8 AF-D + 24-85AFS + 70-300VR. I have other primes and zooms (like the 50/1.2, 105/2.5, 180/2.8 and 80-200AFS) to use if needed.<br>

The wide end is where FX really shines and can be had for not too much $$ or size/weight if you are willing to give up across-the-frame wide open sharpness.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>I own the 20/4 AI and my wife has the 20/2.8 AF-D. Shot fully open (and the AF-D stopped down to f/4) on a DX camera, the older MF lenses is clearly sharper in the corners; stopped down further, the differences become smaller. The poor corner performance of the AF-D on a DX camera makes me wonder how bad the performance is on FX especially when not stopped down to f/5.6 or more.<br>

I agree with this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...when I look at photographs in books, on the net, or exhibitions, it is rarely optical performance that catches my eye...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>up to a point. It is not the first thing that catches my eye and probably not the second or third either - but there are instances were the use of an "inferior" lens left me with a taste of "I wish better glass was used". Not nearly as many as the opposite scenario though - looking at thousands of images online taken with the latest and greatest and most expensive gear and still looking as if taken with a P&S.</p>

<p>You know, the funniest thing about this whole discussion is that despite owning at one time a 50 1.4G, 85 1.4D, 28-70 2.8D, and 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S, my 50 1.4 AIS is still the sharpest lens I've ever used on almost any Nikon DSLRs, including the D700. It doesn't play nice on the D3000 and other tiny cameras, but on every other Nikon DSLR it's the dog's bollocks.</p>

<p>Feel free to explain that one for me while you're telling people they need to buy $2,000 lenses to 'justify' a D700.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some 20 years or more back, I had an obsession with optical performance. That has now lessened.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mervyn, this reminds me that I take an almost unreasonable pleasure from using a 35 year old 24mm f/2.8 pre-AI Nikkor (converted to AI) on a D700. It handles nicely, and I just like the way the pictures look with it.</p>

<p>I, too, think it's odd to feel like a D700 or D3 invokes an obligation to buy the newest lenses. Rather, a D700 includes the right to use it as a platform for whatever optical thing might strike your fancy.</p>

<p>The four core manual lenses I used in film were the 105/2.5, 50/1.8, 35/2 and 28/2.8. My decision to sell my D300 and buy a D700 was to 1. go FX and 2. get the best FX sensor platform I can afford under $2k, used and 3. have a platform where my older manual lenses will have another life. I'll never buy new. Someone else can cop the depreciation.<br>

Right now, the answer to all three questions is the D700. That may not be the case in a years time, but right now, as it is in the D3, its the best FX sensor from Nikon for the price. I genuinely want to play with all my lenses and as I am relatively new to digital, my skills will not challenge the camera or the lenses I have.<br>

On the D300, way and above all other lenses that I had and used on it, the Tokina ATX Pro 11-16/2.8 was probably the only modern lens that I really liked and it was terrific on the D300.<br>

So I am looking for a similar lens for the D700 that costs between $500-800. I thought the 20/2.8 AF-D (or earlier manual versions) might have served the purpose and saved me some money. Now I'm not so sure.<br>

I think whats been discussed in this thread has been valuable as there is no recommendation better than feedback from actual users. </p>

<p>I've posted this before for an example....I think this lens is very compatible with the D700. It is an inexpensive companion to my 24-70mm F2.8 for that extra width along with great AF. I'd buy another if I needed one.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I really like the 20/2.8D, and I think it gets a bum rap from a lot of folks that don't shoot or have never shot with one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My 20 2.8 AF-D was likely my favorite lens on film. When moved to digital (D200, so DX) I was convinced I would have been happy again. Not so. My kit 18-70 (a very good kit zoom, but still a kit zoom) was outperforming it easily at wide apertures. When I bought a 12-24 f4, the difference broadened further (not by much). I was surprised, I guessed that perhaps my copy got somewhat damaged in the last times. I had, luckily, access to two more copies from friends. I tried them both, with results which were indistinguishable from what I got from my copy. My 20 2.8 D sits in the closet since then. When I moved to FX (D700) i pulled it out again to see how it performed there. Not good at all. My DX 12-24 f4 at 20mm covers the FX format: it is by no means good in the FX corners, and still it outperforms the 20 2.8.<br>

So not only I shot one, extensively: I shot three of them, and it is not a good lens on digital. Mind you: it can work, depending on your purpose: stopped down to at least f8 is acceptable (but not great) if sharpness in the center is important, provided you don't look at the corners. If sharpness is not crucial (I shoot mostly street, and I'm fine shooting a 50 1.4 D at 1.4 if needs arises) it can get the job done. If I owned one (I do in fact) and I had to use it as a stopgap until I buy a modern lens, or as a very rarely used lens I keep for special applications, I would use it. But I would not buy one, because it is not a lens I would want to use if I had a choice. Factor in that I want lenses to perform in the f2.8 - 8 range mostly, because it is what I use. It is rare for me to shoot at f11: a landscape shooter who never goes below f8 might find the 20 D more acceptable than I do.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I also love my 135/2D DC, as well as my 80-400 VR - sterling IQ from older AF-D lenses that regularly get dissed online.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know about the 80-400, but I own, use, and love my 135 f2 DC (non even the D version), and I don't remember people dissing it online. My understanding is that it is a very respected lens. I think Nikon could and should come up with an updated 135 f2 (they can drop the DC feature for what I'm concerned) mostly to include AFS and update the coatings (it is not a very contrasty lens), because I guess somebody buying an expensive lens now has the right to expect up to date technology at that price. But I would not upgrade mine since it does a great job already.</p>

<p>L.</p>

<p>These are the full frames shot from my extreme crops above. The shot with the Sigma was properly exposed (showing detail in the clouds) with both Nikon lenses seemed to overexpose a bit. Making normal sized prints would reveal no differences in sharpness/detail.</p>

<p>"my existing lenses would ..... do very well" There are many factors which contribute to a quality image. Post processing and print size can have a dramatic affect on the results. Small prints will not reveal 'flaws'. Large prints will. Post processing can level the playing field dramatically as shown in my sample photos. The 24-120mm VR I lens is often touted as being one of Nikon's poorer lenses but several tests I have done, including this one, tell me otherwise.</p>

<p>Test the lens (I suggest you do with with any lens you intend to buy) before you buy it. If you are happy with the results, buy it.</p><div></div>

<p>CORRECTION: I was just reviewing the EXIF data and I was shooting in MANUAL exposure mode, so the apparent slight overexposure in the Nikon images was actually my error (I had the aperture set to f3.5 and the Sigma operates at f5.6 @ 22mm) . But I have found that when shooing in automatic modes, my Sigma tends to underexpose a bit compared to some of my Nikon lenses.</p>

<p>Elliot, thanks for your effort, but neither your small JPEGs of the entire frames nor those major magnifications that were damaged during post processing is going to show the differences among those lenses.</p>

<p>I hope you notice that the OP is intersted in a 20mm lens on the D700. That is a super wide angle on FX. Among the three zoom lenses you "tested," 20mm is only in one of the zoom ranges. Therefore, I am afraid that your effort is quite off topic.</p>

<p>There's a possibility that older lenses like the 20mm f/2.8 do not perform as good as they're mounted on film cameras. I don't know the structure of the 20mm, but the rear element must be so designed that the light hits perpendicular to the photosites. But of course how much does this light loss would effect the final visible image is another question.<br>

If I remember correctly, the first UW lens on the Nikon line up which takes care of this final dramatic bend of light to meet the needs of a DSLR, is the 17-35mm f/2.8... I know that it's not so much affordable and that's why I still desperately wait for the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>Serkan</p>

<p>You know, I asked the exact same question here and on Nikonians about a year ago. I got a wide variety of answers , but I must say not so many vehemently anti 20mm 2.8 AF-D.<br>

The D700 is my first DSLR, as I was a film advocat (FM2) so I have manual lenses. The D700 made sense. It's also the first new camera I've ever bought, and I'll not be replacing it , as I'm not a camera collector, I like to take photographs.<br>

In the end I got a second hand 20mm 2.8 AF-D from Ebay for less than £200, it came in a box and is at least 20 years old, but works great for me on the D700. To be honest I haven't got a magnifying lens out to look at the extream edges, and I never will.<br>

I like to take landscapes and do this by walking. I've already upgraded the strap (I can recommend OP/TECH), as the weight of the D700 takes some getting used to. I tried the 14 -24mm , and yes it's a fantastic lens, BUT to more than double the total weight it is not an option for me.<br>

Yes you're right the Country File comp was won with a compact camera, it's because the subject is brilliant, and captures a unique moment. It was taken by a farmer who was rounding up his sheep last winter, and I can tell you that there is no way he would have been lugging a D700 with that 14- 24mm lens while getting the sheep in!.<br>

P.s I'm In Darlington and I'm bored of the snow now.</p>

<p>Chris,<br>

Many thanks for the posting. We are in Wensleydale. The snow is no fun - unless you can get out and take some photographs. The forecast is better for tomorrow: I might take the F4 out - I have an Op/Tech strap for that - I'm familiar with the weight issue.</p>

<p>I've ordered a 20mm afd from LCE. I haven't got the D700 yet, but the lens has a 14 day unconditional return period plus 6 months guarantee. I can give it a whirl on the D70s, but, of course, that is dx so won't tell me all I need to know. I'm sure, in any event, the lens will be fine on the F4, so even in the worst case situation it will be hardly wasted money.</p>

<p>Your use of the lens and the D700 is encouraging. It is strange how these things generate quite strong feelings. It was the same when I asked about whether I should buy a D700 or D7000. Still if everyone agreed all the time, we might get even more edgey - perhaps they weren't thinking about it at all!</p>

 

<p>The OP stated that top quality "short" zooms are rather expensive. Nikon's `14-24mm is. Sigma's 12-24mm is not. My intent was to offer him an affordable option to Nikon's 14-24mm which he and others may not be aware of. The test I did was for myself a few months ago. While there are many complains about Sigma IQ, I have found their 10-20mm (DX) and their 12-24mm (FX) to be quite excellent. I guess perhaps I misunderstood his post in thinking that a high quality short zoom that was not expensive might interest him.</p>

<p>Elliot,</p>

<p>Thanks for the posting. I had actually read the reviews on that lens - and many are rather good, although the filter issue is a bit of a nuisance - or so it seemed to me. I had also read the reviews on most other lenses in that "zoom" range.</p>

<p>The Sigma actually got on my possibilities list. It was perhaps more an issue of being beyond my needs rather than price.</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

<p>Having regard to the differing comments from members, I felt it useful to contact Nikon (Europe) for views on the D700 and 20mm f2.8 combination.</p>

<p>Now, of course, we would hardly expect any manufacturer to shout stinking fish in relation to their products. However, the member of staff who replied said he personally used the D700 with the 20mm lens, and found to be excellent. I would have thought that if it were otherwise he would simply have remained silent. He probably has better opportunity to access Nikon equipment than most of us.</p>

<p>Mervyn</p>

<p>Shun, I think the Nikon 20mm f2.8 will work very well on the D700. It's not like digital suddenly makes an older optical design obsolete. Not all of us can afford to go out and buy an $1100 lens. The OP is asking a simple question about a lens that just a few years ago, people were raving about. Now sudden in late 2010 you are telling people that this lens sucks. Well sorry but I don't buy it.<br /> Mervyn,<br /> I had the D700, and I used much older manual focus Nikon lenses on it, and I got superb results. Go and pick up the 20mm lens and enjoy it! I am sure it will serve you well. I've had good luck with all Nikon lenses I've owned, even the optical designs from 1959 still perform well in my experience.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, I think the Nikon 20mm f2.8 will work very well on the D700. It's not like digital suddenly makes an older optical design obsolete. Not all of us can afford to go out and buy an $1100 lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dave, digital has different requirements to the optics than film. That is why a number of older lenses designed for film are no longer that good on digital. I personally still have a few of those lenses myself. In particular, older wide angle lenses that are not telecentric tend to be problematic on digital.</p>

<p>I toally understand that not everybody has $1100 for lenses. However, somehow those same people have $2400 or so for a D700. I also understand that some people don't like heavy lenses such as the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S, but those same people want a fairly heavy D700 over the much lighter D7000. After a while, it is clear that it is pointless to debate this any more. The only thing that matter is that you are happy with your purchase.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I toally understand that not everybody has $1100 for lenses. However, somehow those same people have $2400 or so for a D700. I also understand that some people don't like heavy lenses such as the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S, but those same people want a fairly heavy D700 over the much lighter D7000. After a while, it is clear that it is pointless to debate this any more. The only thing that matter is that you are happy with your purchase.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun -<br>

It's not just the camera body weight that some people (like myself) consider, but the total lens+body weight AND bulk to get to a certain FOV. Here's an example to get to 20mm on FX:<br>

D700 + 20/2.8 AF-D: 1,344 gms<br>

D7K + 11-16/2.8 Tokina: 1,340 gms<br>

So, essentially the same weight, but the D7K + Tokina will be a bit bulkier, though at the advantage of having some zoom capability (but higher low light noise).<br>

I found the 11-16/2.8 + D300 to have very similar IQ to the D700 + 20/2.8 at similar apertures (and @14mm on the D300 of course).</p>

<p>You could even throw a 18-35/3.5-4.5 AF-D on the D700 for a total weight of 1,444 gms - 0nly 100gms more than the D7K system for some additional zooming capability and a bit more bulk.</p>

<p>So, I guess it's not so black and white. These days, to get excellent wide open performance at a wide field of view one must have a heavier and bulkier system, but if you don't need the fast glass that's great wide open, there are many options that don't necessarily negate the use of an FX body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun -<br />It's not just the camera body weight that some people (like myself) consider, but the total lens+body weight AND bulk to get to a certain FOV. Here's an example to get to 20mm on FX:<br />D700 + 20/2.8 AF-D: 1,344 gms<br />D7K + 11-16/2.8 Tokina: 1,340 gms</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, that is precisely my point and I agree with you completely. It makes no sense to me that those who want the 20mm/f2.8 AF-D because it is light also want the fairly heavy D700 regardless of its weight. That was my point in the paragraph you quoted.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I found the 11-16/2.8 + D300 to have very similar IQ to the D700 + 20/2.8 at similar apertures (and @14mm on the D300 of course).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's assume that is indeed true (although I am sure we can debate to no end on that):</p>

<ul>

<li>The D700 ($2350) + 20mm/2.8 AF-D ($565) = $2915</li>

<li>D300S ($1449) + Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8 ($600) = $2049</li>

</ul>

<p>All of those are current new prices at B&H. Again, it puzzles me that people are more than willing to pay a heavy price for the sake of having a body in the FX format.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that the D300S gives you dual memory cards, video capture and the Tokina 11-16 gives you the flexability of a zoom, although its zoom range is somewhat limited, but you can substitute that with a Nikon 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX and that combo is still a lot cheaper, etc. etc.</p>

<p>And if you substitute the D300S with a D7000, the price goes down by another $249.</p>

<p>I wasn't going to contribute to this again, but having regard to John's comments I will.</p>

<p>When I first posted, I said that the top quality zooms were rather expensive and probably beyond my needs. That remains the case. However, whilst I am not made of money, I could, if I really wished, afford one of those zooms.</p>

<p>Ultimately, in my case, the question is a simple one. It is not about how much increased flexibility would one of those zooms give me, or, indeed, could I really afford it. It is, allowing perhaps for some stopping down in the case of the prime lens, how much better in image quality terms would the zoom be when set at 20mm? I also take into account the fact that the stopping down factor for the prime may cause some limitations in use.</p>

<p>If the prime were not very good, and the zoom very good, then that is one answer. However, if there were no difference or it marginal, that is another answer. There is clearly a wide disparity of view about the quality of the 20mm on the D700. As I recall, earlier in the postings mention was made of someone (? Michael R) carrying-out a comparison test. If that is right, and it is comprehensive in every sense, we may all be better informed, and, thus, capable of reaching a better view on what might best suit us individually. As it is, I've found a 20mm and am awaiting its delivery - delayed now for almost a week because of the terrible weather we have been having in the UK. At the moment, I could try it on my D70s and F4. Shortly, I should be able to do so on a D700 - I'm presently seeking the best price. Obviously, however, I don't have one of the "super" short zooms to test it against. Thus, I have to accept that it might perform very well, but such a zoom could be even better.</p>

<p>Anyway, it has cost me 200gbp with 14 unconditional day return and 6 month warranty, so I'm not worrying too much.</p>

<p>When I last posted, I wasn't aware that Shun had commented on what John had said.</p>

<p>Not that it matters too much, but weight factors in my case are not very important. I don't lug cameras very far nowadays, but am used to my brace of F4s. I also have the tribulation of a Mamiya RBSD outfit. Not that I carry that great distances, especially with a rather large tripod..........</p>