Wide-prime

[yefimovich_ilia]

I own today Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AI-S and i want something more wide and i need Af

lens...i use it most of the time with D200.

I thought of getting 28mm f/2.8 but i afred of loosing f/1.4 or maybe there are

no realy matter of cheanging 35 to 28 maybe i need to get 24 or 20...i need it

for studio work and for journalism

 

thaks

[shawngibson]

The Nikon 28/1.4 AF is supposed to be one of the best non-German WA lens available, but it is extremely expensive, and hard to find. Currently on ebay there is one for $2000 and the reserve is still not met after 20 bids.

[photojim]

With the small sensor that Nikon DSLRs have, a 35 isn't a wide angle lens at all. Your choices are very limited. Nikon has a 24/2 manual focus lens. Sigma makes a 24/1.8 and, I believe, a 20/1.8. If you can live with f/2.8 you have many more choices.

 

Another option is to shoot film. A 24 or 28 is a pretty wide lens with film. A 20 is extremely wide. You may even find your 35/1.4 to be wide enough on film, depending on your application.

[yefimovich_ilia]

Jim MacKenzie: i also use film camera and with film i'm realy happy with 35mm lens angle but i want something more and i can choose from 28 and 24 lenses...i aslo have 14mm and it 20 on digital but i need something inbitween that and 60 70 i though of maybe 30mm till 45mm it about the 28mm f/2.8 and the 24mmf/2.8 ...and also i'm very afried of loosing f/1.4...

[yefimovich_ilia]

so my many question is 28mm or 24mm?your suggestions

[eric friedemann]

I love my 28mm f/1.4 AFD Nikkor, but it was hideously expensive. If I were buying a lens to use with Nikon DSLRs, needed wider than a 35mm focal length and wanted to retain an aperture of 1.4, I'd buy the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma DX lens with the integral high speed focus motor at a fraction of the price of the Nikkor:

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Cs8P

 

 

If you wanted wider than 28-30mm and could live with losing an f/stop, the obvious choice would be the 24mm f/2.0 AIS Nikkor. And yes, it is annoying that you would have to pay $800 and buy a manual focus lens to get the equivalent focal length of a 35mm f/2.0 lens on a Nikon DSLR- thanks Nikon:

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=36918&is=USA&addedTroughType=search<div></div>

[jim_gifford]

Ilia, given a choice between the autofocus Nikkors at 24mm and 28mm, I would choose the 24mm.

 

The MANUAL focus 28/2.8 Nikkor is a very nice lens. The AUTOfocus 28mm Nikkor is good but not terrific in terms of sharpness and contrast. In AUTOfocus lenses the 24mm is better.

 

On your D200, the 24/2.8 will give you almost exactly the field of view you like on your film cameras with your 35/1.4 manual focus lens.

 

You do lose the wafer-thin f/1.4 depth of field. Also, you lose a couple of stops' worth of light through the 24mm since it will only open up to f/2.8... but for the rare times when lens speed becomes an issue on your D200, just increase the ISO to compensate, and deal with the slightly higher noise in the photos.

 

For almost all journalism markets, the web offset press creates about a hundred times as much "noise" as any original photo would offer regardless of the ISO value you set on your D200. For studio work, you control the light. So the 24/2.8 should be fine for your stated purposes.

 

Be well,

[jim_gifford]

Oops, to clarify: my comments did not include the f/1.4 version of thh 28mm autofocus Nikkor; it is far too rich for my blood. Probably fantastic. Those who have used it seem to think so.

 

The f/2.8 autofocus version at 28mm -- the one mere mortals can afford -- is the one that is okay but not terrific.

 

Be well,

[ky2]

If you can go for the 30/1.4 Sigma, it sure is a much better buy than the mighty 28/1.4 Nikkor. I wouldn't count off the 24/1.8 Sigma-- at f/2.8 it's better than any Nikkor wide open.

 

I like my 24/2.8 AIS on my D200, it is sharp as a tack. Great price too.

[robert_finkelman]

The 28 1.4 is indeed a wonderful lens. I was lucky enough to nab one before they became extinct. I've been casually hunting for another one here and there and can assure you, you will no longer be able to find one new from a retailer anymore.

 

If you want to go a bit wider, both the 20 2.8D and the 18 2.8D are nice lenses. I'd give the nod on opticals to the 20, and the award to the 18 for build quality. I use both regularly, and am happy with them.

 

Rob

[chris_leck]

Any opinions on the Sigma 20mm f/1.8?

[ShunCheung]

Yaron, this thread is about wide primes. The 30mm/f1.4 Sigma isn't one. For DSLRs, we are talking about 24mm and shorter. Even 28mm is very marginal.

[ky2]

28 and 30mm are the same. Of course, on DSLRs 28 isn't considered wide.

[shawngibson]

Or if you can hold off, a Zeiss 28mm I hear is in the works (that is just internet rumours far as I know), but that's pure manual, and probably the reason it will never sell (and information-free). Dummies. The non-chipping was one of the kickers for me NOT to buy a D2x...

 

Take that totally with a grain of salt, there only exists a 50 and 85 right now...both also unchipped. Did I say 'dummies' yet?

 

Shawn

[shawngibson]

I also sort of liked the Nikon 15/2.8 rectalinear AI-s for around $1300...but it didn't really super duper impress me for that price so I sold it.

[johnmarkpainter]

Ilia,

 

I have the S(t)igma 24/1.8 It is a very good lens that you should try out.

 

jmp

[jeff h.]

My favorite prime lens on a D200? The Nikkor 24/2.8D. Want wider? The Nikkor 20/2.8D.

Why insist on a prime lens? I'm not a journalist, but it seems that flexability in focal

lengths (you often can't select your ideal vantage point for shooting or composing) would

point towards one of the excellent, modern, pro-level zooms.

[photo5]

Yes, I had the Sigma 20mm 1.8 and I wasn't all that impressed by it. It's very soft wide

open, especially on the corners. The color rendition of the lens isn't that great. I sold it

later for more than I paid for it. I would look at a Nikon 20mm 2.8 AIS or AF-D. You'll find

the color and sharpness is much better.

 

Dave

[yefimovich_ilia]

thanks to everyone:)

 

today i found a very cheap nikon 20mm f/2.8D secondhand

and now i think maybe to take it insted of Nikon 24mm f/2.8D

 

how is 20mm lens?

[chris_leck]

"today i found a very cheap nikon 20mm f/2.8D secondhand and now i think maybe to take it insted of Nikon 24mm f/2.8D[.] how is 20mm lens?"

 

The 20mm f/2.8D is a good lens, not great. I sold mine when I got a 17-55mm zoom, which is better in virtually every optical way (worse for size, weight, and price). I'd like to see faster AF prime offerings from Nikon in the 12-24mm range for low light work -- not that I could afford any.

[basarab]

When speaking about DSLRs, as Shun pointed out, wide really meas ultra wide. A 28 won't cut it. A 24 is just barely. I don't know why you insiste on primes since Nikon doesn't have wide primes that good below 24. However you might try out the 12-24 DX Nikkor and see if it doesn't suit you.

[basarab]

I need to make a small observation. I had overlooked the fish eyes because you do not seem intereste in them and also plainly overlooked the AF 20 mm f/2.8, AF 18 mm f/2.8D and AF 14 mm f/2.8D ED since I have not shot with them and the wide zoom 12-24 covers all these 3 lenses' focals.

 

But if you need to clear everything up give those 3 lenses a try and tell us your impressions.

 

Cheers,

Cristi

[roland_vink]

Of the prime wideangle lenses, 28mm is probably too close to 35mm.

 

24mm is a nice focal length but the current designs show some CA.

 

The 20/2.8 gives better results and would be a good compliment to your 35mm lens.

 

Otherwise consider the AF 17-35/2.8 which is about as good as you get in this range.

[ilkka_nissila]

The problem with Nikon wide primes is that all but the 14mm were designed for film, and while they all give excellent results on 35mm film, they don't give good results on DSLRs. The 14mm was designed for D1 and is disappointing on higher-res DSLRs. The 20mm is good center but not so good off-center. The 24mm isn't so good anywhere. The 28mm (AF-D) starts to give excellent results stopped down but it is normal, not wide on a DX format DSLR. So none of the prime wide angles give acceptable results on a D200.

 

A 12-24 DX or 17-55 DX is really what you want. If they're too big, then voice your concerns to Nikon so that they start producing DX prime wide angles.

 

I'm currently testing a 12-24 DX and it's certainly much better than any of the Nikon wide primes (have used them all except the 18mm).

 

I would think it's preferable that whenever people discuss image quality of a wide angle lens, they mention which sensor they're using or if it is film. On film all of these lenses give excellent image quality.

[adrian_mihai1]

<p>IlKKa !<br>

I still don't understand: what do u usualy shoot? jurnalism? or landscapes? because it is a huge difference of lenses for that puropose<br>

tha way you talk ( distorsion on edges, corners) seems you want to use the wide lenses for landscapes, in that case you better look for AI , AIS manual lenses , don't need autofocus<br>

if you are a journalist( or you want to shoot people , streets, city) then you must have AF lenses.<br>

However, if you own a D200 , as Shun Cheung said, wide means under 24 mm focal distance., means 24, 20, 14<br>

I would go for manual lenses ( very sharp, cheap, durrable, light)</p>

<p> </p>