Nikkor 20mm f3.5 AI vs. 20mm f3.5 AIS vs. 20mm f2.8AIS??

[w. shinn ii]

I have recently purchased a new Nikkor AF 17-35mm f2.8D ED-IF lens.

The lens is scheduled for delivery next week. In a previous post, I

asked the forum to provide opinions concerning their opinions between

the AF 17-35mm and the 20mm f2.8D. The result was astounding, with

many experienced photographers providing their insight and

preferences. Recognizing that a choice of "one lens" was ultimately

a trade between features, handling and performance; I decided to go

ahead and purchase a used manual focus 20mm Nikkor, an AI or AI-S

version. This will be used in circumstances where weight, ghosting,

need for hyperfocal distance scales, etc. is required. In all

probability I will be shooting for greatest depth of field, so lens

speed is not a significant factor.

 

My question is this... is the performance of the 20mm f3.5 AI, the

20mm f3.5 AI-S, and the 20mm f2.8 AI-S comparable/close enough to

each other as not to be a concern? Your opinions as to the best of

these (your preference) for nature/landscape photography?

 

I will be shooting a Nikon F3 from a tripod, with Velvia slide film.

Your opinions are valued and appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance. Regards,

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

check lens reviews at www.naturfotograf.com He compares the models you mention.

[david_h._hartman]

I bought a 20/2.8 AIS and was going to sell or donate my 20/3.5 AIS but after reading <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/"

target="_new"><u>Bjørn Rørsletts</u></a> review, <a

href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html" target="_new"><u>Wide-Angle

Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount</u></a> I decided to keep both. This is the same review that is recommended by Jonathan Ratzlaff. The 20/3.5 AIS has a few trick up it�s helical. It is tolerant of being pointed into the sun and it good close-up.

[david_h._hartman]

's

[Jim_Tardio]

I've tried them all and the current 20/2.8 is the best, IMO. The 20/3.5 and the 20/4 are very decent, and there's really nothing bad to say about them. But the 20/2.8 just has more snap to it.

<p>

If it was me, I'd look for a used 20/2.8 AF-D. It has good manual focus feel, DOF scales, and will work with manual & newer bodies. There's always plenty of them on E*bay.

[jim_hennessy]

Do you plan to use the 17-35 and have a 20 also? Or are you going to return

the 17-35 and keep the 20mm?

 

I have a 20mm 3.5 that I picked up cheap at an auction site. I was looking for

an 18mm 3.5 (I used to have one of those), and thought the 20mm would be a

good interim lens. I am happy with the 20mm enough that I am not looking for

an 18. I shoot mainly landscape, for near far shots the 20mm 3.5 works well.

The 3.5 works very well at close distances less so at far distances.

[ShunCheung]

I'll give you a different answer. I too have a 17-35 AF-S zoom, and my "back up" lens to it is a 24mm/f2.8 AF-D. For general use, I think the 20mm is too wide. If you are not in a hurry, you can always use the 17-35 for a short while and see which focal length fits you best before adding a back up lens.

[w. shinn ii]

Tremendous response! Thanks all for your contributions. I have decided to go ahead and get a used 20mm f2.8 AF as a backup lens to my AF-S 17-35 f2.8D ED-IF. The 20mm will be used primarily when the depth of field scale or lighter weight is required/desired, or when shooting directly into a bright light source such as the sun, lights, etc. As I am thinking towards a future purchase of a D100, I decided to go with the AF instead of the older AI/AIS type lens. I should have my new "used" 20mm in the next few days. I have rendevous scheduled with Tim Ernst in the Ozark mountains in April. Tim promises to have the wild-flowers up, the trees in full bloom and the waterfalls flowing when I get there! This will be a good opportunity for me to try out my new lens!

 

Thanks all again. Regards, Will