nikon 20 2.8 or sigma 18 3.5

[ted_raper1]

I'm going out west this spring on a driving tour, need a wide angle prime. I'll be using it on a D200. Both lenses are

available used in the $150 range. All my other lenses (except a Tamron 90 2.8 macro) are Nikon, and I'm hesitant to

buy the Sigma. It's 2mm wider, but slower (no concern, I have good tripods). Anyone here have any comments

about the two lenses? I know the Nikon 20 is a fine lens, but know nothing about the Sigma.

[keith_b1]

<p>Don't know about the Sigma, but the Nikon 20/2.8 AiS I have is an 'OK' lens when stopped down, better on DX than FX, due to the rather noticeable falloff in image quality in the outer 1/3 of the FX frame. I've used it on a D2Xs, now on a D3. On FX, the 20/2.8 is strictly a f/8 or f/11 proposition, unless you like the sides of the frame blurry. It seemed to be a much better lens on film. I'd be tempted to try the Sigma, since it's a touch wider anyway. 2mm makes a big difference in that range.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Thanks, Keith. I don't usually shoot a lot of wide angle stuff; buying one of these lenses just to have in the bag for the trip. I'm kind of tempted to try the Sigma. For $150 I can toss it if I don't like it.</p>

[akira]

<p>If the focal length of 18mm and and the speed of f3.5 would suffice, I would recommend 18-55/3.5-4.5 II zoom which should be in the same price range and offers better image quality at 18mm than either of the primes you are looking at.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I have and use the 20mm f2.8 AIS on my D700. Its good at f11 but that is pretty much the only way I like it. I think you might be much better off with a kit lens starting at 18mm. If you where into wide angle than one of the zooms available should due very well.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Thanks, Akira. I actually have an 18-55 kit zoom (which has basically been a paperweight, never really used it except once or twice). Is it really better image quality than the primes? I don't generally care for zooms, which is why I've never used the 18-55.</p>

[wj_lee]

<p>You have to bear in mind that the modern zooms are designed using computers and most Nikon wide angle primes are few decades old in design which seriously need updating.<br>

Having said that I like my 20mm ais and other than some CA on digital I don't have problem using it even wide open.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Lee,<br>

<br /> I still find my Nikon primes better than any of the zooms I've owned. Granted, I've not owned the newer f2.8 Nikon zooms. But my 1970s era primes all beat my Nikon AF zooms in terms of overall image quality. That includes the Nikon 18-70mm AF-S, the Nikon 16-85mm VR, and the Nikon 70-300mm ED zoom. The Sigma 10-20mm was very sharp and contrasty, and the Tokina 12-24mm DX zoom was also superb.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>If you can put a few more bucks into it, The Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24, and Tokina 11-16 are probably all better than those. The Nikon 20 I've used. It's not that great, and 20 is only "medium wide" on DX anyway. Another prime I hear great things about is the old 17mm from Tokina.</p>

<p>How big do you print? I suspect that if you don't print bigger than 8 x 10 and are going to use a tripod with this lens, you will see no difference between basically all the lenses mentioned. As the saying goes, the best lens is a sturdy tripod.</p>

[akira]

<p>Ted, I basically prefer primes to zooms, too, but 18-55 kit lens IS something you should not overlook. I used it with my D40 and it performed wonderfully even wide open especially at wide settings. I have had two samples and they showed no noticeable sample variation.</p>

<p>I've also had 18-70/3.5-4.5 and 17-55/2.8 zooms. 18-70 showed the least chromatic abarration of these three, but 18-55 was the best in regard to the resolution. My 17-55 bought new was a defect sample and Nikon couldn't fix it. 17-55 is, so long as I know, almost infamous for its all-too-wide range of sample variation.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Thanks, all. I think I'm just going to give the kit 18-55 a try and see how that works out. I rarely print bigger than 11 x 14, and I don't do a lot of wide angle work anyway - my usual modus operandi is to isolate something and then use one of the primes for a fairly close up shot. The advice has been much appreciated.</p>

[frankeleveld]

<p>The Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D is currently my second-most used lens. I'm using it on both my D200 and my FM2n, preferring it over the Tokina AT-X 124 for its smaller seize and lighter weight and its superior flare resistance. The Tokina may be a little sharper, especially in the corners, but it has more chromatic aberration (which isn't that hard to get rid of in PP BTW). The 20/2.8D is a very good lens on film, on digital it's still a good lens, but it's not without issues (vignetting, soft corners at large apertures).<br>

That said, by carefully composing my shots (which one should do with wide angles anyway) I can avoid these issues from becoming problematic alltogether.</p>