brett_jurgens Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 A local camera store has a 20 f3.5 AIS manual focus lens for sale. They are asking $220. I am not famliar with this lens, but had been looking at purchasing (sometime in the future) a 20 f2.8 AF-D or the 20-35 AF-D. However, for the time being, this lens's price is more appealing (and affordable) to me. However, I do not know of its reputation. Is this a sharp lens? Does it cover it's entire field with no vignetting? How does it compare to another Nikon lenses covering the same focal length. Thank you very much for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Bjorn Rorslett rates this and other Nikkors at his web site: <p>http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html<p> Once you get to his site, click on "lenses" on the menu on the left. Eventually you'll get to a long page which if you scroll down enough will give you the links to lens reviews by focal length groupings. He gives the 20mm f/2.8 a 4-4.5 rating; the 20mm f/3.5 a 5 rating up close, 3 distant; and the 20mm f/4 a 3 rating.<p> For a different opinion, try Ken Rockwell at:<p> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2035.htm<p> Rockwell and Galen Rowell loved the 20mm f/4 because it was so tiny, and capable of very sharp photographs.<p> I have the 20mm f/3.5 AIS and can testify to its great resistance against flare and ghosting. You can shoot with the sun in your photograph with this lens. This is completely different from my 24mm f/2.8 AI lens, which will flare if the sun is anywhere near the field of view. The other great advantage of this lens are the standard 52mm filter size, which allows me to use the Nikon L37C filter without vignetting. I can use the Cokin P holder and one Cokin lens hood element without vignetting as long as I ensure that the sides line up parallel to the frame. Physically, the lens is about 2/3 the size of a 24mm f/2.8, so it is small and light enough to slip in the pocket of my jacket.<p>All superwides have light fall off to some extent when wide open. If you stop down a couple of stops, it goes away. I use mine for interior shots, and it is highly addictive. The 20mm f/3.5 lacks the CRC feature of the 20mm f/2.8. However, that is because the 20mm f/3.5 is actually optimized for close up shooting. You can think of it as a superwide pseudo-macro lens. If you slip a thin extension tube in there, you can get VERY up close to the subject, and still have a phenomenal background view that a superwide will give you. I agree with Rorslett that up close, this is 5/5. The details are astounding. For infinity focus, there is definite curvature in the field of view. This may make the corners go out of focus if you're photographing a planar subject such as a brick wall, but for real life 3 dimensional subjects, it is a non-issue.<p> I have no experience with the 20mm f/2.8. The reviews say that it is very sharp, but prone to flare. I have this situation with the 24mm lens, so I've not bothered to "upgrade" to the faster lens. Besides which, I don't shoot with the 20mm all the time, so the couple of hundreds of dollars difference to me is not worth spending on the f/2.8. I bought mine in mint condition from ebay for $250.00 about 6 months ago (Merry Christmas to myself). If the lens you're considering is in excellent condition, I would buy it.<p> Autofocusing in this range is unnecessary - zone focusing would do. But if you have a camera such as the N80, which goes meterless with a manual focus lens, then you may have to give in to Nikon's blackmail and buy the AF lens instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 I have both. I was going to sell the 20/3.5 AIS but decided to keep it for its resistance to flare and ghost.<br> <br> <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/</u></a><br> <br> Best place on the net that Ive found for subjective evaluations of Nikkor lenses. Bjørns review saved me from making a mistake. I like turning lenses into the sun and would have missed the 20/3.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolf_lockwood Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Get the lens, Brett, unless the AF 20 is just a month or two away and you want AF and matrix metering and all that. The price is right, on the face of it, and the lens is indeed wonderful. I've had the 20 3.5 AI -- same lens essentially -- for 20 years and wouldn't be without it. Others have summed up its virtues so I'll say little more. It's small, it's capable, and it doesn't demand thin filters. I too have an L37C on mine without vignetting. The HK-6 hood can be a pain, attaching as it does with a little set screw on the outside of the lens front -- mine comes adrift with little provocation. It's a great lens otherwise. Best $220 you'll spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 I also have the HK-6 lens hood on my lens. It holds on quite tightly. I put a generic 77mm lens cap over the works to cover up when I'm done. Since I never take the hood on or off, there is no wear on the clamping surface of the hood. Rolf, have you considered putting some Scotch tape or other substance on the clamping surface of the hood to make it hold tighter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted May 31, 2003 Share Posted May 31, 2003 I have owned and used them both. <p> Sorry to disagree with the others, but the 20/3.5 just isn't in the same league as the 20/2.8. It's sharp enough and handles flare well, but it just seems to lack that "snap"...for lack of a better word. <p> I'd advise you to spend a bit more and get a 20/2.8 AF-D. You'll have the best 20mm Nikon has made, and you'll have a compatible lens for current film & digital bodies. If you could swing the 20-35/2.8, that would be even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted June 1, 2003 Share Posted June 1, 2003 <em>"Sorry to disagree with the others, but the 20/3.5 just isn't in the same league as the 20/2.8." -- Jim Tardio<br> </em><br> The 20/3.5 AIS is sharper at close distance, smaller, the lens hood is smaller and less obtrusive and its more resistant to flare and ghost. These special qualities make it well worth owning.<br> <br> The 20/2.8 AIS is the better lens over-all.<br> <br> For best results try stopping the 20/3.5 down to f/5.6 but not more than f/11, with the 20/2.8 try f/4.8 but not less than f/11.<br> <br> My advice is buy them both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted June 1, 2003 Share Posted June 1, 2003 "not less than" SHB "not more than" (dyslexia). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 "...the 20/3.5 just isn't in the same league as the 20/2.8..." I want to see more remarks like these on photo.net. When enough folks say stuff like this and drive the prices down to around $100 I can afford to buy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim_Tardio Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Where were you when I sold mine, Lex? I didn't get much more than $100.00 for it.<p> The problem with the lens is that is was soft at infinity, and near-far compositions just were not as pronouced as the 20/2.8...probably due to the lack of CRC in the 20/3.5. Oh, it was sharp close up, but the background was soft. Just for comparison the 35/2.0 focuses much more closely than the 20/3.5, and is sharper.<p>So, for me, the neat and useful things about wide angles is that near-far rendering. The 20/3.5 was only good for half that effect.<p>The 20-35/2.8 manages to stay sharp for both close-ups and at infinity, even without CRC.<p>Just my observations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted June 2, 2003 Share Posted June 2, 2003 Interesting observations, Jim, thanks. I'll keep that in mind when I finally do get around to shopping for a 20mm Nikkor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbilder Posted June 4, 2003 Share Posted June 4, 2003 There should be some questions to help to answer your questions? - How much money will you spend for 20mm? - How often will you use such a lens? - What kind of photos do you do? - Do you often shoot into the sun? The 20 3.5 is one of the best flare-resistant lenses I know - Will you shoot the lens wide open? The lens is not the best wide open, but very good at f8; you can't see a difference to the other lenses mentioned. - What about Macro with wide-angel? The 20-35 has a minumum range of 50cm, the 20 2.8 of 25cm, the 20 3.5 of 30cm. Of course, the 28 2.8 MF has a minumum range of 20cm! - Do you need AF, MATRIX, etc? - The 20 3.5 will not work on F65, F75, F80, D100? All in all, you want get any of the alternatives for 220 Dollars! One alternative has not been mentioned yet: The 18-35. It is said to be very god at the 35mm end and you can surely life with the quality at 18mm. There are many reviews of this lens online. A suggestion: Make some test-shoots at your dealer and decide than, or get it and - if you can not live with it, sell it again. Best wishes, Axel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now