20 f/2.8 AF-D Sharpness Quality Issue?? Advice needed.

lee_vgg · June 25, 2010

Zack,

"because of how much of the sensor they cover, but also the level of distortion"

Really? I thought it just cropped / zoomed in on the image (in super simple terms). Anyone care to comment whether it would adjust distortion as well?

I just ordered the 12-24 DX and will probably go with it. I'll do some more tests vs the 17-55 this weekend, but will probably send both back (Adorama is being kind and letting me return the 17-55 after the 15 day period). I'm looking for something smaller and liter than the 17-55. The 12-24 isn't as small and lite as I would like, but it's closer.

I did try the Voigtlander 20 f/3.5 at one point and love the size and quality but am just too scared to really solely on a MF for wide angle. I could manage the landscape shots, but I don't think I could manage the street / action shots. That's probably lame of me, but there it is.... Otherwise I'd look at the old 20 f/4.

rjm photo · June 26, 2010

Lee

I had my 20mm AFD 2.8 Nikkor overhauled by Authorized Photo Service after experiencing stuck diaphragm blades, they adjusted and fine tuned the lens to factory specs.

It works equally well on D700 or D200. I like the results I get, realizing after all, it is a an ultra wide.

This is a grab shot from a month ago, spinning around, aiming the camera and pushing the button.

rjm photo · June 26, 2010

Lee

The above should be the full frame, and it was sharpened very minimally in NX2 to correct any AA filter loss of sharpness.

I would go out and shoot with the lens and see how you like it on a number of subjects. I generally leave the shooting of bricks and walls for others, after all there are other qualities that make a good photograph beside ultra sharpness.

lee_vgg · June 26, 2010

Thanks everyone for your responses. I've Auto Focus Fine Tuned each lens on the D300s. It made a huge difference, but surprisingly for the 17-55 instead of the 20! The 17-55 was clearly focusing too far in the distance. The 20 mm was also focusing in the distance, but because of a slight blue haze apparent in the image and poorer sharpness, the adjustments didn't make as obvious a difference. I settled on -7 for each lens.

Here's a comparison of each after fine tuning (full view of the scene is further down in the post). Clearly the 17-55 wins. This book's binding is normal glossy, not extreme but not matte either. Natural light was entering from the right, and two lamps were in the back corners of the room.

I was curious if I could get the 20 mm to the same sharpness of the 17-55 mm in post processing. So I sharpened (+40 in LR3) and added detail (+50 +/- in LR3). No matter what I tried I couldn't get rid of the blue haze, which is the real culprit in making the 20 mm look blurry.

Here is the 20 mm RAW vs sharpened:

Here is the 20 mm sharpened vs the 17-55 mm RAW:

However, once you sharpen the 17-55 mm it again takes the lead:

Here's the full image, with a comparison of the 20 mm sharpened and the 17-55 mm RAW:

Well I am still on the fence about the 20 mm. By the time I thought of placing the B&W haze filter on the 20 mm to try and filter out what I refer to as the "blue haze", the sun had set. I went ahead and took a shot, and found that the "blue haze" was reduced. This helped the sharpness but it still was not as sharp. Here's the comparison (17-55 mm image is from previously). I would say this is acceptable, but I'm going to be shooting a lot of sunrise / sunsets with water and sky. These were all taken with soft evening light through a window. That's just about optimal conditions, except that the binding of the book is a bit glossy.

I'll test the 20 mm on the same scene and time Sunday, but with the B&W filter. If the B&W reduces the "blue haze", then I may keep it.

Thoughts and comments are appreciated.... Thanks.

lee_vgg · June 27, 2010

Well I'm sure some is reading this and thinking "but he's comparing those at f/2.8!" Well yeah, that's not really good is it. I was using f/2.8 to see the AF Fine Tune effects the best, but probably should have done some additional comparisons at f/4.5, f/8, f/11.

Well I just did and got some interesting results....

How about that focusing now? Well, the first shot at f/4.5 focused too close. Second shot at f/4.5 focused correctly. I don't suppose this fine of error really matters in the field, unless I'm at f/2.8-4.5 and trying to close-focus on a subject where this error would matter. If it does, I just gotta be sure to check the LCD and re-focus if appropriate.

Here's the comparison:

Here's the comparison of the 20 vs 17-55 at f/4.5 (which the good focus of the 20). Seems the 17-55 focused a bit too far back in this shot. Geez, you can't win huh??

Here's the 20 vs 17-55 at f/8.

Here's the 20 vs 17-55 at f/11.

Here's two other areas of the image at f/11. Not bad little 20 mm!

This 20 mm is now doing a pretty decent job against the 17-55. We'll see how it does tomorrow in the daylight..... I am hoping the B&W haze filter plus stopped down a bit will address that "blue haze" issue.

I also noticed that the 20 mm seems to let in a bit more light. Maybe because of the 17-55 ED coating or zoom nature?

Thanks again for everyone's comments. It's about 11 pm here so enough with this for now....

tom_mann1 · June 27, 2010

While this thread may take the award for the ultimate pixel-peeping thread of the month, the latest results seem to exonerate us old fogies who, for the sake of nostalgia, weight, or unobtrusive size, occasionally mount one of our old primes instead of the newest glass and somehow manage to get decent results. ;-)

Thanks for the interesting series of tests, Lee.

Tom M.

PS - There are quite a few older primes that, IMHO, simply can't hold their own against modern glass, e.g., the Nikon 28/2.8 AFD, the 35/f2 AFD (in the corners wide open), etc. The bottom line is that one has to know the limitations of one's equipment and use it appropriately.

lee_vgg · June 27, 2010

I few more tests today outside and in low-light and I think I'm convinced the 20 mm is alright for my needs. It is obviously not as sharp as the 17-55 at 2.8 and next to it seems blurry. At 4.5 it's noticeably less sharp but you have to do a double take to catch it. At 8 they are almost the same, though the 17-55 still wins just barely. With a little sharpening they're the same. At 11, they are pretty much equal, though I would still give a slight edge to the 17-55.

I'll mainly be worried about sharpness for landscapes, which will typically be around f/8 or f/11. If I'm shooting at f/2.8 and absolutely need a wide angle, it will do decent enough. Most shots of that style will be for me personally with very little chance of making large prints.

One interesting thing is that even though the 17-55 is sharper at f/2.8, that's assuming you focus correctly. I took a few hand-held test shots of my wife in a dark room with one lamp silhouetting her. I think I was at ISO 1600, f/2.8, and 1/125 or 1/200. There were more in-focus sharp images with the 20 mm than the 17-55! So when you add human error, even if you have an incredibly sharp lens, you may not get sharp images. Two things I do know for sure though: 1) The 20 mm was $400 and the 17-55 was $1300, and 2) The 17-55 is a pound heavier and massive next to the 20 mm. I think I'll be sticking with the 20 mm.

Thanks all for your comments!

john_hinkey · June 29, 2010

I've compared my 20/2.8AF-D and 16-85AFS on my D300, and yes, sure at f/2.8 the corners are not great, but at equivalent apertures and 20mm focal length my 20/2.8 compares very favorably with my 16-85 and in fact has better (I.e., more) depth of field than the 16-85 at the larger apertures.

Side Note: I've become pretty convinced that these optically complex zooms have significantly less depth of field than the simpler optical designs AND less than theory predicts.

It is just as sharp in the center as my 16-85 (which is pretty darned good on the D300) and if you clean up the CA in the corners it's very good at higher f-stops.

Like my 24/2.8 it's not the greatest in the corners wide open, but for landscapes I would not use it wide open (unless shooting star trails at night) and for people/candid shots in low light the center sharpness is more than good enough.

John

peter_murrell · March 11, 2016

I just bought this lens on d300s with the aim of moving up to FF later on. Took a few indoor facial shots at f3.2 and they came out soft. Autofocus just seems to miss even though the point was directly on/around the eyes.

Set it at 5.6 and still the image quality wasn't particularly good for a prime. My 17-55 2.8 definitely outperforms this.

Hmm...not too sure about this now but it seemed perfect to use as a street lens on my DX sensor and then great for travel when I pick up my FF.

I guess I had my hopes up thinking I could get around the 'weight' issues of my current lens (Tokina 11-16. So sharp and produces excellent images) but no.

Sending it back to the shop to check after they saw a few image samples.

Sign In

20 f/2.8 AF-D Sharpness Quality Issue?? Advice needed.

Recommended Posts

lee_vgg

Link to comment

Share on other sites

rjm photo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

rjm photo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lee_vgg

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lee_vgg

Link to comment

Share on other sites

tom_mann1

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lee_vgg

Link to comment

Share on other sites

john_hinkey

Link to comment

Share on other sites

peter_murrell

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Explore

Forums

Learn

Job Opportunities