20mm 3.5 ai/s or 24mm 2.8 ai/s for d200

<p>I am debating between the afore mentioned lenses for use with my d200. I already own the Tokina 12-24 which I love. There are times though when I shoot with my wife that I would like for her to be able to use the 12-24, so this would be somewhat of a secondary lens. I am interested in opinions on those who have used both of these specifically on a D200 and what they liked or didn't like about them and which they preferred. This would be used mostly for landscape/street/cityscape. I own several ai/s primes so I am well aware of metering limitations and crop factor. I also have the 18-70 kit zoom and the 28mm 2.8. I have done a fair amount of research and have picked these two based on good things I have read and the fact that they are relatively close in price on the auction site. Please keep discussions confined to these lenses on this camera unless there is a third party lens of equal quality for the same price(roughly $150). I know there has been much written about these as I have spent many hours pouring over PN but haven't quite had my questions answered, I also have read through Bjorn's site so no need for links. Example images would be greatly appreciated. I thank you in advance for your time and opinions which are also greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>sidenote : look to Bjorn Rorslet site, he reviews both. The 24 gets bad marks for CA on the D200.<br>

The rest I leave to a real user. I have a 20mm 2.8 AF and it's OK, but not splendid.<br>

Jimo</p>

<p>For $150 I would buy them both and then decide which one to keep. BTW, I already own both but paid much more for them :-)</p>

<p>$150 ?!</p>

<p>I haven't seen them that cheap. Mostly twice that, I think.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was too slow in getting my bid in and lost out on the 24mm, it went for $81 in great condition. The deals are there is you are patient.</p>

<p>I have tried both on the D200.</p>

<p>The 24/2.8's (one pre-AI, one AI) are bad performers, concerning chromatic aberration - which is my greatest regret about the D200, because these lenses were my favourite stellar performers on slide film!</p>

<p>The 20/3.5 does show some CA, but is very much useable. Focusing is nog easy on the D200's screen. The ultimate scharpness is limited - my 12-24 (..which I bought for above 'reasons') is just as good sharpness-wise (at 12mm, and even better at 24mm) and better in terms of CA.</p>

<p>Good luck with your choice.</p>

<p>I have an Ai 24 f/2.8 on my D300 and I really like it. No problem with CA at all, actually. Mine is from around 1982/83, judging from its serial number. It's quite sharp wide open, and of course a lot lighter and smaller than the Tokina. I'm very happy with mine, paid around €175 for it about 7 months ago I think. <br>

And I don't think the 4- is a bad mark on Bjørn Rørslett's site, but it's just not excellent (according to his findings). A 1 or 2 is a bad mark :-)</p>

<p>I do not have the 20 f/3.5, so no comment on that one.</p>

<p>And <a href="http://www.ww-web.nl/images/ai/20090626_013crop.jpg">a link </a>to a 100% crop of the 24 f/2.8 wide open on a D300!</p>

<p>Looks good, Wouter.</p>

<p>How does CA (if any) react when stopping down? In my samples on D200 it gets worse.</p>

<p>With my example of the 24/2.8 AIS on the D200 CA is not a problem. It's there, but it is not a problem. However this lens flares worse than any other lens I've used.</p>

<p>Albin, stopped down I haven't noticed much (more) CA. Sometimes small subtle green/blue edge here and there in very high contrast areas, but never much, and easy to correct (although I rarely feel a need to do that).<br>

Flare - can't tell. Haven't used this lens in many situations yet where flare was a risk.</p>

<p>Okay, here it comes: get the 20mm 4.0 ai<br>

It is one of the best ever!</p>

<p>I have very good experiences with the 24/2.8 AIS on film, D200 and D700. It is not CA-free, but especially if you shoot raw and use CaptureNX, the correction works very well (this is automatic on D300, no?). In fact, I have a fair amount of experience with both 24/2.8 and the 12-24/4 on the D200. The older AIS is consistently better than the 12-24, which is itself quite good at 24. The difference is not by much, however. I would have no hesitation with the 24, say from f/4.0-11, on the D200! Great effectively 35mm lens for DX. </p>

<p>On the D700 the 24/2.8 is one of my favorites: a lens that is always with me for the D700, along with 35/1.4, and either the compact 85/2.0 or one of my 105/1.8 or 2/5s... </p>

<p>On film, and without CA correction, the 24 is not perfect. This is particularly noticeable at high mag compared to the nearly perfect Zeiss 21 on contax-G. But, for practical purposes (e.g., up to 11-14 in with good scans from Fuji Provia or Velvia), the 24 holds up pretty well even against the Zeiss. </p>

<p>The 24/2.8 AIS is one one of Nikon's gems, especially at ~$200 used. </p>

<p>I do NOT have such good experience with the 20s (2.8 AIS and 3.5 AIS) on the D200. They are fine (not great) on the D700 (2.8 definitely better than 3.5), but I am not satisfied with the 2.8 on DX except maybe at f/11. It just does not sharpen up for me. The 3.5 is pretty much the same. I recently picked up the 18/3.5 and am looking forward to trying it on the D200. It works well on my D700 so far. </p>

<p>Thank you all for taking the time to respond, it is very much appreciated. It would be nice to be able to try them out first hand but even though Memphis is pretty big, there is not much here as far as camera shops go. I had been leaning towards the 20 but it sounds like the 24 is a safer bet. I have a couple I am watching that should come in between $100-$150. Again, thank you and happy shooting.</p>