experiences with nikkor 20mm 2.8D

[johnmyers]

i am wanting to buy the nikkor 20mm f/2.8D lens very soon. anybody

have any qualms about it? any praise? anything to say at all about

this lens or other good alternatives? price isn't really a

factor...since i'm going to be saving either way.

[jeffrey moore]

I suspect you would get more responses if you posted this query in the Nikon forum.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I really love the 20mm f/2.8D. The 17-35mm f/2.8D AFS is a little sharper but is much

more massive 9and expensive. I have used virtually every iteration of a 20mm Nikkor since

the very old 20mm f/3.5 UD Nikkor (mid 1970's vintage. The current 20mm is a keeper.

[alex_lofquist]

It is a natural jump from 24mm. I like it for cramped interior shots where I cannot back away.

 

The "20" isn't an easy lens to work with. Learning to utilize its unique perspective can be daunting. Where you would think that vistas would ba a natural, often they are bland and uninteresting. The 20 demands a foreground subject to offset the background panorama. It gives little choice in background selection as almost everything will be included in its field, and in focus.

 

I don't use the 20 very often, but sometimes...

[NetR]

What Alex said. You must have an interesting foreground in most cases. A great little lens. It is easier to carry around than my 18-35 Nikkor, so I usually have it when I find a need for it. Regards, Ross

[yoni_perlmutter]

what each has said. mine is AF-S though i would guess there's

little or no difference optically. very good from 5.6 and often best

with a "near-far" composition - something definable in foreground and

background distinct as well. from f8 this is not usually a problem.

as with all WA lenses, this should be kept parallel to the horizon for

less "distortion" in the image - especially so for photography of

structures. wonderful lens, used often in my photography.