Nikon 20mm v 12-24mm wide open

How does the Nikon 12-24mm compare with the Nikkor 20mmAF for sharpness. I find

that I need to cose down to f5.6 on the 20mm to get the sharpness I need.

 

How does the 12-24mm stack up at f4 and 5.6?

 

Thanks for your help

The 12-24 is quite a bit sharper and has far less CA than the 20mm. I don't think there is any contest here. You do need to stop down the 12-24mm also to get good sharpness in the edges in the 12mm end though. The 12-24 is also much more flare resistant than the 17-55/2.8 DX.

 

However if you need a fast lens (e.g. for people photography) the 17-55 DX would be a better choice. This latter lens is excellent for wide open performance but it never gets quite sharp in the corners, while the 12-24 is really good stopped down. Think of the 12-24 for architecture and landscapes, and the 17-55 for people.

I meant "the 12-24 is really good throughout the frame stopped down".

Ross the 12-24mm Nikkor is a great lens and the only reason to use the 20mm AFD are 1) the faster speed of f2.8 if you need it and 2) the small size. I like the 20mm if I just want to carry one small lens. (If you still shoot film its a different story.)

Do yourself a fiscal favor and take a look at the Tokina 12-24 before deciding to buy the Nikkor 12-24. They are virtually the same lens, one half the price of the other.

The Nikon 12-24mm/f4 DX is an AF-S lens. The Tokina is not. In fact, currently Tokina has no lens that has an internal AF motor in the Nikon F mount. Whether having AF-S in a super wide is important to your or not is another issue, but there is a significant difference between the two lenses.

My bad, sorry. Wasn't thinking. I'm ready....punish me..... lol

There is a significant difference if you are using it on a D40. Silly me.

Thanks everyone for your replies.

Re: the 20mm. I've found that I have to stop down to about f5.6 to get acceptably sharp images on the D200. This negates having a f2.8 lens in the first place!

 

I don't think f2.8 lenses are so important on the D200 because at 400ASA I'm getting as good results as I did with Provia 100.

 

I used to use the 24mm f2.8 and 35mm f2 as my workhorse lenses so am looking at that range. I'll use my 50 1.8 for the rest.

 

I finally got the chance to have a play with the Nikon 12-24 and it's a pretty compact lens. Especially compared to the Sigma 15-30 f3.5-4.5 I'm using till I make my mind up!

 

Tokinas are not imported into New Zealand any more by a distributor but are available through Trademe (the NZ version of Ebay), so I can't check them out, and the sample variation can be worrying.

 

The price difference is the Nikon for around NZ1600 and the Tokina NZ$790, so there is a big difference.

 

I often use the 20mm as a walkaround people lens when travelling for documentary work. I'm about 95% certain I'll purchase the Nikon 12-24 and use the 20mm as my backup travel lens.

I'm buying the Tokina this autumn. Half the price of a Nikkor and it focuses about as fast, even without AF-S. I can buy quite a few nice harddisks, prints and frames with those other 500 euros.

Ross the combination of the two sentences makes me wonder if there may be user erreor involved in getting the desired results on "sharpness":

 

"I've found that I have to stop down to about f5.6 to get acceptably sharp images on the D200. This negates having a f2.8 lens in the first place!

 

I don't think f2.8 lenses are so important on the D200 because at 400ASA I'm getting as good results as I did with Provia 100."

 

First of all DOF is very different if you shoot at 5.6 or at 2.8. With a 20mm lens it is difficult already to get shallow DOF so having f2.8 is crucial (over 5.6) for many situations (perhaps not for you). On the other hand if you do not focus properly the larger DOF will give you sharper images.

 

Secondly I use my 20mm AFD quite often walking around in dim light. I know it is not as sharp as the 50mm Nikkor lens or the moderate wides - but for a 20mm lens it is quite decent. Especially for low light use handheld the performance of the lens is often not the liming factor but shaking hands are. Do not use the "rule" that shutter speeds 1/focal length are sufficient. Try shorter times just to see if that makes any difference.

 

There are reports that the 20mm lens gets out of alignment after a knock so you may want to check up on this. Without testing and sample images is is hard to judge performance of a lens.

Walter, you don't need to knock the 20mm to get it out of alignment. All you need to do is carry it in a bag for a few weeks with its own padded compartment and voila, you get shifts in sharpness across the image area. I had mine adjusted and the adjustment was good for a few weeks. I definitely did not knock it around.

 

But none of these things show on film (unless you really get it bent out of shape ...). It's just not a digital friendly design. The 20mm manual focus is said to be more stable. But I doubt it's completely without CA in the edges either. I am still waiting for the 18mm or 20mm DX.

Ilkka sorry to hear that. I will give my lens an extra pad :-) So far I was lucky and carried the lens in my bag many times in the overhead compartment when flying. Because of its small size I like it for traveling. With film I used it mainly for landscapes near 5.6 or 8 from a tripod with good results. On digital bodies it is a nice walk around lens and I often shoot it wide open.<div></div>

Sorry wrong file the above is from a 24mm lens.<div></div>

Walter; Thanks for the responses. When i said "I don't think f2.8 lenses are so important on the D200 because at 400ASA I'm getting as good results as I did with Provia 100."

 

I meant that where i shoot it is often in fairly dark conditions, and if using provia often had to use my faster lenses to get acceptably sharp images. I sometimes used my 35mm f2 to obtain speeds of 1/30th-1/60th sec to stop camera shake.

 

By being able to use 400ASA (on the D200)for equivalent (& arguably better) quality I've already gained 2 stops.

 

When comparing the Nikkor 20mm and the Nikkor 12-24 it's slightly different because I'm comparing apples with apples re. sharpness, not camera shake.

 

If the 12-24mm is as sharp or sharper than the 20mm at equivalent apetures, then I'll go with the zoom as I'll get my beloved 24mm (film aspect) equivalent back!

 

As an aside, regarding the Tokina, would anyone buy a Tokina 12-24mm over an auction site? I'm worried about the sample variation if I can't try one out?

 

Thanks everyone

Ross I see a slight advantage of image quality (resolution perhaps not contrast) with the 20mm prime over the zoom lens near wide open (of the zoom). The difference is visible at 100% crop when using optimal conditions like tripod etc. but not relevant for my shooting. Besides the zoom is about equal in IQ to the 24mm f2.8 AIS prime. So I can cover two good lenses plus get the wide end if I carry the zoom. Having both lenses I use the 20mm AFD only if I want the smaller lens or obviously for the faster speed.

 

The Sigma is so well known for sample variation (asymmetry) that one may no more call it "variation" :-P To be fair I must say this is based on bad statistics, a small number of three cases that all needed adjustment. I do not know about the Tamron.

Walter, do you see CA in the edges of the 20mm AF-D? I see quite considerable CA there. If you do get it, how do you process it? This has led me not to use the lens on my D200 any more. I use 17-55 for now for digital wide angle. On film the 20mm works great.

Ilkka I also prefer the 17-55 on my D200 if I am willing to carry the beast. This 17-55 zoom is remarkable but it is big and scary for some people, it is heavy and it is a few times the money of a used EX condition 20mm AFD f2.8.

 

I do use PTlens from ePaperPress or ACR 4.2 for correction of CA. I just tried on one image and needed -28 red/cyan and -25 blue/yellow correction in ACR if that tells you anything. PTlens also does a good job on correction of the distortion. It is an acceptably cheap plugin filter for PS.

"As an aside, regarding the Tokina, would anyone buy a Tokina 12-24mm over an auction site? I'm worried about the sample variation if I can't try one out?"

 

There seems to be cases of sample variation for the Tokina both on this forum and on dpreview. But maybe it's a case of the few writing in with bad experiences compared with the vast majority of happy users.

 

Without a Tokina dealer in NZ it means I have to buy on the online auction, which could be a pain if it has to be returned.

 

By the way, I'm not a lens snob, I'll happily use a Tokina or whatever if it is as sharp and as well built as a Nikkor. Mind you, I'd hardly call my 20mm AF a sturdy lens, especially compared with the 24mm AFD.

 

If the Tokina is sharp enough for magazines and photo libraries then I'll go with it.

Have & use both lenses. Both lenses are plenty sharp enough. The 20/2.8 has CRC (close-range correction) which is a great aid when capturing near/far (foreground sharp, background sharp) shots.

<p>

The 12-24 is sharper, but I'd rather use the 20 for the reason mentioned above.

Thanks for the replies everyone. But I bit the bullet and bought a Nikon 12-24mm today, should be here in 4-5 days.

 

I decided I needed the sharpness in the 16-24mm range the most. Going to have to find another couple of articles to pay for it now!

 

Will use the 20mm as a back up.

 

Cheers for the help.