ron_tahar__zahav Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 <p>Hard to focus,but is is ok?</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sunley Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 <p>Really hard, like impossible to tell. The original scan is from a Noritsu mini lab scanner, probably a basic 1000x1500 pixel scan. At least half of the resolution of the lens disappeared in the scanning process.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigd Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 <p>Focusing a 20mm lens on a 35mm camera is pretty trivial because your hyperfocal distance is pretty short. Just set yourself to f/8, focus distance three meters, and things will be just fine unless you try to shoot something that's less than a meter and a half away.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evan_dong1 Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 <p>I believe that the late Galen Rowell used that focal length version within the Nikon 20mm versions.<br> I have that lens along the earlier 20mm F3.5 UD and both are sharp and easy to use. The 20mm F4.0 is a bit harder to view due to its maximum aperture of 4.0. Its compactness and lighter weight makes up for this dimness.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin carron Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 <p>I used to have the Nikkor UD 20mm f3.5. It focused well up close but focused further away things were always a tiny bit soft in comparison. Great lens though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 <p>At web resolution, it looks fine. If you printed it huge... I don't know :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 <p>Best to post a link to a larger scan, Photo.net tends to blur a lot of photos in the forums.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Rance Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 <p>I have this lens. Nice and sharp but viewfinder shows strong light falloff (due to the small rear element). I have a small gallery here <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=876410">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=876410</a> which may interest you.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 <p>I have the non-AI Nikkor 20mm f/4 (52mm filter size). It is one of my favorite lenses which I still shoot a lot on my Nikon equipment. Alas, it has a projection of unknown (but probably rear lens protection) function on the back that means it won't fit on 35mm sensor Canon digital cameras, or I'd use it even more.<br> Never had a problem on mine with sharpness, even without considering the considerable depth of field.</p> <p>It's just not possible to make judgments on a finer level from a 700 pixel-wide shot of the whole image, and <em>anything</em> will look fuzzy at pixel-peeping 100% blowups.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcolson Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 <p>I have this lens also and have used it on my Canon 5D extensively. I covered the rear element well and used a dremel to reduce the height of the rear lens protector to clear the mirror. Works fantastic and with my OM Olympus 24mm f/2.8, it covers all my wide needs.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now