18-70mm (@20mm) vs 20mm AF

[shawn_mcfarlane]

I already have the 18-70mm and was wondering how the 20mm AF compares to it at

20mm and an equivalent aperture?

 

I'd like something brighter than the 18-70 and the only other option in my head

is the 17-55 which is rather alot and a lot bigger

[rob hopkins]

If you are willing to look into third-party product, you can choose from the new sigma hsm 18-50 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Tokina 16-50 2.8. Personally I have the Tamron and i love it. I think its as sharp as my Nikon 80-200 2.8. Even though its not hsm or afs, it focuses plenty fast and is not really that loud. I hope this helps

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

From what I've learned IQ of primes, as well as sharpness, primes will always win over a zoom.

 

What do you mean by "brighter" - more light sensitive? brighter shots? Tell us more what you are looking for. Based upon this it's hard to help.

 

Lil

[Rich B NYC]

A good site to compare lenses is http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

As you'll see, the 20m f2.8AFD is not one of Nikon's finest primes.

 

If you're looking for a zoom in that range with a constant f2.8 aperture, Robert lists a few good examples.

[carl_becker2]

I have the 20mm AF f2.8 D and the 18-70 zoom. If I have the time I take a couple of primes and have some fun. If I am shooting and event in the daylight then I use the 18-70. I have not tested for differences but Bjorn has some info that may help you:

http://www.naturfotograf.com

looks like the 20mm AIS could be better if you like to focus.

[joseph_smith3]

I use the Nikon 20mm f 2.8 AF lens on my D 200 when I need a wider f stop than that offered by my 18-70mm lens. I have attached some uncropped jpegs taken with it. The pillow shot was taken at f 2.8. Joe Smith<div></div>

[joseph_smith3]

Here is a car taken in bright sun at f 11: Again uncropped. Joe Smith

[joseph_smith3]

Here is the car. Sorry about that. F 11.

[ronald_moravec1]

Get one of the 12/24 Nikon, Sigma or Tokina or 10/20 Sigma zooms.

 

At 400+ for a new 20, the zoom a better decision.

 

Then the 70/300 to finish off the long end.

 

I am using some older Nikon primes like 24 2.8 35 2.8 50 1.4. Frankly I am not impressed compared to my Leica lenses I use on an adapter for longer focal lengths. I am stuck with Nikon primes for short lenses.

 

I have a D200 18/70 and 55/200 VR Looking at 12/24 Nikkor and 10/20 Sigma. Probably will go the sigma route.

[mawz]

The 20's a good lens, and quite small. But it won't outperform the 18-70, let alone the 17-55 or Tamron 17-50.

 

I'd only look at the 20 if you're looking for a compact streetshooting prime for a non-D40.

 

I own the 20/2.8 AF, love mine, but I'm not oblivious to its warts.

[Jim_Tardio]

I have both lenses and would rate sharpness as a toss up between the two.

<p>

The great thing about the 20 is that it has CRC, which is crucial for near/far focusing. If you're happy with the 30mm focal length that the 20/2.8 provides on Nikon's 1.5 cropped frame, then by all means get it.

<p>

And if you should someday invest in a full-frame Nikon, you'll have a nice (very) wide angle lens.

[tom_halfhill]

I have tested both lenses. The 20mm is sharper wide open than the 18-70mm is at any f/stop. And the 20mm gets even sharper when stopped down. The difference would be apparent only in 8x10 and larger prints. However, the 20mm has noticeably less vignetting than the 18-70mm does at 18-20mm.

[dcraton]

Before you make a decision. . .what are you shooting? What is your subject matter? It's a bit of a reverse way of thinking, but your application will determine your lens.

 

To Tom: print is the same stopped down on both lenses per paper prints. Amazing what disappears on print on paper compared to what we see on our hi def mons. I get amazing results with my 17-55mm and other primes as well. But, I love PP integrated with great lenses.

 

Happy hunting.

[oskar_ojala]

When I tried out the 24/2.8 against the 18-70, they were about equal. Granted, the 24/2.8 is faster and has a slight edge when sued wide-open. I wouldn't expect a huge difference between the 20/2.8 18-70.

 

There are other things to consider too, such as a full-frame lens suffering much less from vignetting and the size of the lenses.

[shawn_mcfarlane]

given the price of the 20mm when i looked (more than i thought) I decided to buy the 12-24mm as that seems to get very good reviews and should be better than the 18-70 in the overlapping 18-24mm. looking at my exif data from pics this seems to be where i take most shots anyway.

 

plus i get the extra bit from 12-17!

 

ok so it doesnt get me a larger aperture, oh well

[patricks]

the 20/2.8 was a great little performer on a 35mm (FF) film camera, less so on a D200 in my experience. on the other hand, i've always been very happy with the perf of the 18-70 DX relative to its cost.

[sjmurray]

I compared a brand new 20mm f2.8 wide open to my 18-70 at 20mm also wide open. The 18-70 was equal in the center, and much sharper on the edges. The 20mm was mushy in the edges and corners wide open. That convinced me it wasn't that usable at f2.8. Sample variations are the rule, however, and some people may have 20's that are better wide open.