Nikkor AF 18mm 2.8 for nature photography

[jlkphoto]

Last week I had the opportunity to hike several miles in Joshua Tree

National Park and the Indian Canyons around Palm Springs, CA. I

found myself using my 24mm lens 95% of the time and wishing for a

wider view for a lot of shots.... I've searched phot.net and

elsewhere for info. on the Nikkor AF 18mm 2.8 and can find no tests

or references to this lens.

 

<p>

 

Anyone here with experience with this lens and its suitability to

outdoor photography?

[bobatkins]

What's wrong with the 20/2.8? It's 1/3 the price and a number of

people (e.g. Galen Rowell) think it's a great lens for landscape work

when you need to go wide.

 

<p>

 

Even 20 is pretty wide for most people, 18 is getting into "use once

in a great while" territory unless you are looking for some special

effects. I use a 20-35 zoom and I can't really remember the last time

I wanted to go wider than 20mm.

[jim_korczak1]

I am going to second Bobs motion for the 20mm. I have both the Nikkor 24/2.8 and the 20/2.8 In fact, they are inseperable; when I want to go wide, I always try both . The 20 is significantly better than the 24 for those times when you want to get wider. It is small, light and has surprisingly little distortion for its coverage. The 18/2.8, while still a rectilinear lens, will show even more distortion than the 20, and perhaps enough to spoil those wide shots that have straigt lines near the edges. Bob already mentioned the significant price differential. Of course, try before you buy,if at all possible.

[dan_smith]

I have an 18 and use it on occasion and for the near/far effects it

is very nice. It isn't the f/2.8, being older, but works very well.

For a number of subjects it is perfect. When looking I tried a 20 to

complement the 24 I had and settled on the 18 and have never been

sorry.

[ShunCheung]

I have the Nikon 24-50mm zoom as well as the 20mm/f2.8. Keep in mind

that the 20mm is already much wider than the 24mm; in that range, a

couple of mm make a huge difference. The 20mm is a lens I don't use

very often because in most cases it is too wide. A 18mm will be very

extreme and that is why it is a pretty unusual lens. Of course it has

its applications (and some folks such as Dan like it), but I would

check that out before buying one. If you need something wider than

24mm, I think the 20mm is a better (and much cheaper) choice for most

people. Whether you are among "most people" is something only you can

decide.

[drc]

I'm with Dan on this one, the near far perspective on this lens works tremendously well, but you really have to put a lot of thought into designing shots to make it work for you. Luckily i get to borrow a friends, but if that option were unavailable to me, i would certainly invest in one.

[paal_jensen1]

I've used an 18mm lens for exactly 20 years now and would not been

without it. I have used it exclusively for nature and landscape

work. My wide angles are 18, 24, 35 mm. I find it to be an ideal

combination. I'm not familiar with the Nikon lens in question, but I

take it for granted that it is an excellent lens.

[jeff_plomley]

Buy the 18mm lens, it is supior to the 20mm. I have both and can

atest to the enhanced sharpness of the 18mm over the 20mm. While

both lenses incorporate Nikon's CRC treatment, the 18mm actually

contains an aspheric element which I suspect accounts for the

difference in the 10% improvement you will see in the 18mm over the

20mm. If you are ever shooting in tight quarters (e.g. the slot

canyons) you will kick yourself for not having the 18mm. If you want

to see published images with this lens check out the article by Linde

Waidhoffer a few years back in O.P.-mind blowing.

[Jim_Tardio]

I have to disagree with the above post. I've used virtually all of

Nikon's wide angles..in many different versions...and found them all

to be as sharp as you'll ever need. The only difference between them

is the angle of view.

 

<p>

 

The current 20/2.8 AF is my favorite, although I have my eye on the

16/2.8 full-frame fish eye.

 

<p>

 

To offer an answer to your question, the 20 is more practical in the

field. With an 18 you will almost always have to watch for your feet

or tripod legs. Also, the sun will almost always be in the

shot...even if it's behind you. I know this sounds ludicrous but you

would be amazed at how often it happens. The 20 is guilty of these

things to a degree, but it is easier to avoid.

[bobatkins]

I played around a little this weekend with my 20-35 Canon zoom and

a Tamron 17mm, adapted to EOS via the rare and semi-mythical EOS

adaptall mount (no longer made!). I really didn't find much difference

between 17mm and 20mm <em>for the type of landscape shots I was

doing</em>. They were typical far-near shots of a fairly flat

landscape. Now maybe if I'd been

standing in a cramped slot canyon, or some other place where I

couldn't really back up I would have found a big difference. However

for

flat landscape shots the major difference was the foreground, and

by moving slightly forward (a few inches sometimes) the 20mm gave

much the same image as the 17mm. This is sort of what I've found

before in the field. I stopped carrying the Tamron a while ago.

 

<p>

 

Perhaps I need to take a trip to one of those slot canyons instead

of making futile attempts at landscape photography in NJ.

[jason_yoder]

Why stop at 18? Why not go 15 or better yet, if money is no concern, 13mm! That way you will never have to back up, even if you are nose-to-nose with your subject.

 

<p>

 

Personally, I find the 20mm to be almost entirely adequate. There have been, I admit, a few times I would like it to be a little wider, but overall, it is fine. And I don't seem to have the compositional problems so many people attribute to the wide angles. Occassionally, I get corner distortions, but I tend to watch out for subjects that will end up in that part of the viewfinder.

 

<p>

 

Overall, the 20 is a fantastic tool. It seems to be more and more popular. I see it all the time in the photo-journalism, which seems to be getting wider and wider.

 

<p>

 

Ultra-wide portraits, group shots, tech shots,

 

<p>

 

Seems like the photogs at Chicago-Tribune are addicted. Sometimes their photos are 75 percent in the ultra-wide range. At least it appears this way to my semi-trained eye.

 

<p>

 

jason

 

<p>

 

By the way, anyone want to buy a 24 mm? I think it is too close to 20mm to bother keeping.

[dominiquepajanacci]

Well this is all too confusing. I own a F5 and a few lenses; I have a AF 24mm F2.8D as a main Wide Angle Lens and I am too looking to expand my system. Shall I buy:

 

- A 18mm F2.8D..?

- A 20-35mm F2.8D Zoom..?

- A 17-35mm F2.8D Zoom..?

 

I am not really worried about the cost but more importantly about the quality of what it can produce...as well as weight(380g, 675g & 750g respectively for the lenses above), it's not really much fun to go trekking with 15kg of camera gear...!

I plan a trip to New Zealand with a lot of trekking + Picture taking (Mainly Landscapes) + some skiing occasionally so I would like to buy what I need before I get there.

Then again there is the MAMIYA 7 II with the 43mm F4.5...! Very tempting.

If anyone can convince me about the right direction to take I will appreciate it, right now there is just too many first quality choices; even the zoom can produce exceptional quality so it is a tough decision...!