SHARPEST wide angle lenses for Nikon

[erikj]

I am looking for a 20mm or under lens for my Fuji S2 [and F100]. I don't really care who

makes it, just that it is SHARP. I have the Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4 and it is just isn't sharp

enough, and on the S2 it is more like 40-135mm.

 

I know that most Nikkors have the CRC floating elements, which is desirable to me,

because I will be shooting from infinity to close up. Do other manufacturers wide angle

lenses have that feature? I have a Tamron 90mm macro and it has a floating element and

is pretty sharp from infinity to 1:1.

 

I don't want a fisheye effect and would prefer to have the most aspherical lens that is

somewhat affordable. Also, I don't want to spend over $600ish.

 

Thanks.

[NetR]

You have an F100 and S2, so you probably don't want a DX type lens that won't cover 35mm film. The sharpest reasonably sharp lens would, I think, be the Nikon 18-35.

 

Here are some reviews:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1835.htm

 

http://www.bythom.com/1835lens.htm

 

Anything you do will be a compromise. The Sigma 15-30 might be a possibility for you also, if you can live with its distortion - it is pretty sharp. Thom Hogan also reviews it.

 

If you want really close up, the Nikon 20mm f2.8 AF may suit you better.

 

Regards, Ross

[Prof-K]

"I have a Tamron 90mm macro and it has a floating element and is pretty sharp from infinity to 1:1."

 

Really? Floating element design in Tamron? Where did you get this info?

[klix]

I've been considering a WA lens myself. Though I don't shoot a lot of WA images (I prefer telephotos and macros), there are occasions when the need arises. My budget's about the same as yours, and have both an F5 and D70.

 

A lens I've been considering for a while now is the Sigma 14mm f2.8 or f3.5 (undecided which version to get, although leaning toward the f3.5). They're about $400-700 USED at KEH, depending on which version and the condition.

 

Some of the online reviews I've read (Thom Hogan, luminous landscape, others) rate it as a pretty decent performer.

 

Good luck!

 

KL

[dominic_.]

The 20/2.8 will behave like a 30mm (think 28mm) on your S2, an 18/2.8 will act like a 27mm, and the 16/2.8 will act like a 24mm. The 20mm is by far the cheapest, and when compared to the 18mm, the difference really isn't all that mush. If 30mm on your S2 is good enough, then go for the 20/2.8.

[randy_skopar]

I believe Cosina makes its "Voigtlander" 15mm lens in Nikon mount. That lens has a great reputation.

[erikj]

I forgot to mention, I don't need a zoom, in fact, I would prefer a prime lens, unless the

zoom is as sharp, which I don't think it usually is.

[erikj]

This is from a review at: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/90Tamron.htm

 

"The AF Tamron 90 mm f/2.8 has a floating elements design. The effective focal length at

the minumum focusing distance (29 cm) is 72 mm. In fact, at 1:1 the effective focal length

of a macro lens is given by the focusing distance divided by four. The shortening of the

focal length in new macro lenses, determines also rather short working distances. The plot

below shows the variation of the focusing distance (magenta curve) and of the working

distance (green curve) measured as a function of the reproduction ratio (magnification)."

[vivek iyer]

Floating element design in a Macro lens is not a very uncommon one.

 

The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and the Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 lenses have a pseudo floating element design.

 

The Leitz 100mm Apo Macro Elmarit has a true floating element design.

 

Vivek.

[RaymondC]

how about a Sigma 12-24mm?

a nikkor 20mm? the 24mm i better i heard.

or the nikkor 12-24mm if you can afford a bit more.

[NetR]

Hi KL,

 

The Sigma 14mm f3.4 is a very solidly built lens with little linear distortion. There may be softness issues, but if you want sharp in a 14mm, price the Nikkor. I usually use mine stopped down to f11 or so and set on the hyperfocal distance - with the depth of field that provides it is a waste of time focussing. The strongly curved front element catches light and flares, even with the built-in lens hood, so watch carefully where the sun is.

 

Regards, Ross

[david_h._hartman]

Anytime all the elements in a lens do not move together in a fix optical configuration they float.

[david_h._hartman]

Oops! Anytime all the elements in a lens do not move together in a fixed optical configuration they float. I can't even proofread one sentence at 3:30 AM.

[tholte]

The Nikon 14mm is what you are looking for. It is expensive, about $1300. A friend of mine has one and it is outstanding. I am going to get one as soon as I can gather up the jing.

[ShunCheung]

First of all, please keep in mind that <B>Erik's budget is about $600</B>. Moreover, in the 20mm focal-length range, a couple of mm makes a big difference. If Erik wants a 20mm, the 20mm/f2.8 AF-D should fit both the F100 and Fuji S2 pretty well, although it is only a moderate wide angle for the S2.

<P>

I don't have a 24-85mm/f2.8-4 myself, but it is supposed to be a pretty good lens. If it is not sharp enough, have you tried it on a sturdy tripod and use a fast shutter speed or a flash to test its true optical quality? Unsharp images can be the result of a number of factors. Hand holding/insufficient camera support is often the cause. When that is the case, you can go thru different lenses and it won't help.

[Prof-K]

Thanks Erik, that was something new to me. Dave, does that mean in principle RF is a kind of floating design?

[neil_parker]

>I believe Cosina makes its "Voigtlander" 15mm lens in Nikon mount.

 

That only works on a body with mirror lock-up and requires scale focussing & a separate

viewfinder for framing plus no metering w/ the S2.

[ravi_swamy]

I would suggest either any 20mm Nikkor or the Nikkor 18-35 zoom. I use the zoom and an old manual focus 20mm f2.8 and they are both great. Someone suggested the Cosina Voigtlander lens. I have the CV 15mm lens and it is nice but the 12mm and 15mm versions for the Nikon F mount require a camera with mirror lockup. The lenses are not retrofocus and extend into the camera where the mirror would be.

[ellis_vener_photography]

the 17-35mm f/2.8D AFS has better resolution at 17-20mm than the 20mm AF Nikkor,

buttht is out of your price range. A friend of mine swears that the 18mm f/2.8 AI-S (he

may mean the f/3.5 version) is also sharper than any of the 20mm Nikkors.

[danny_liao]

i agree with Ellis. I have a 28 AIS and a 105 AIS lenses and they are freakin' sharp as

hell on my D1X. It suprised me to find it sharper than my 18AFD. Of course they are

not exactly wide angles. I just want to make you aware that although AIS lens are old,

they still work great with digital cameras. It's something to consider.

[steve_muntz]

I had the 20 AF-D Nikkor, and am sometimes sorry I sold it. It's a very sharp lens that focuses close, and controls flare and ghosting very well. It's also very small and light, and uses common (in Nikon system) 62mm filters. I sold it when I got a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 which is also another choice based on your price range - but I'd probably go for the 18-35 if you want a zoom and aren't bothered by the speed and variable aperture. I can tell you that the 20-35 ghosts a fair amount but I don't know how it compares to the 18-35 having never used that lens.

 

I have an S2 and 35mm SLR's too, and considered the Sigma 12-24 because of it. The shots I've seen taken with the Sigma didn't impress me too much so I'll probably hold out for the Nikkor and just live with the fact that I can't go to the almost-ridiculously wide 12mm on my film cameras!

[joseph_wisniewski]

Erik, I'm going to chime in for the 20mm f2.8 AF-D Nikkor, too. It's decently small, sharp, fast, and capable. Much more flare resistant than zooms in its range. It makes a nice "walk around" lens for street stuff, too. A little wide, but not bad. Fairly inconspicuous. For architecture, you might find yourself playing with PhotoShop or PanoTools to correct distortion.

 

KLIX, the Sigma 14mm f3.5 has always been a friend. OK, it's more a "fun" lens than a "money" lens, but it still does pretty well. My own experience agrees with a lot of reviews, the f3.5 had a slight edge on the f2.8 in sharpness. It loves to flare. If you use it on a cropped camera, I'd suggest a home made extension to the petal hood. Keep the shape the same, just lengthen the petals a bit. You can't use the "cap on a hood" shade, it will vignet.

[erikj]

Is there a place I can go online to see photos taken with various lenses, mostly to see how

bad distortion is on a lens like the 20mm Nikon?

[brian_caldwell]

Erik Johnson , sep 09, 2004; 08:32 p.m.

"Is there a place I can go online to see photos taken with various lenses, mostly to see how bad distortion is on a lens like the 20mm Nikon?"

 

Erik:

I've calibrated both distortion and color fringing in the 20/2.8 AFD for the Nikon D1x using Panorama Tools. These results will translate directly to your S2, but not your F100. I've set up the page so you can see the effect of the correction by moving the cursor on or off of the test images: http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/cc20mm28.html

 

I've also tested and published results for a number of other lenses: http://www.caldwellphotographic.com/ccmain.html

[erikj]

Thanks Brian. You have an AWESOME site. That is very useful information. I am disappointed to see so much color fringing on the Nikon 20, but all of the wide angle lenses I saw on your site have some fringing. It looks like the 17-35 performs pretty well, too bad it costs a small fortune.