Wide angle for landscapes

[bojan_steinb_cher]

Which wide angle AF lens should I get?

AF-S 17-35mm 2.8D unfortunately doesn't fit my budget too well. :-(

I'm torn between AF 20mm 2.8D and AF 18-35mm 3.5-4.5D. The first one

should be sharper and the second more versatile. I shoot predominantly

landscape, so lens speed isn't a major factor.

I'd like to have a lens wider than 24mm, my F80 can't meter with MF

lenses and used lenses marked here is hardly worth mentioning.

 

Regards,

 

Bojan

[kevin7]

the 18-35 gives much distortion at 18mm. can be a great effect if desired, but can also tweak some shots so people wonder why your image "bends" at the ends. don't shoot people with it - unless they are rail thin and want to look fatter...

never used the 20mm, but i'd imagine it may have less distortion. i'd go snap one on at a store and take a peek.

[dave_schneider]

Snapping on a 20mm at the store and taking a peak is not the solution. Most Nikon viewfinders have more distortion than a wide angle lens. Handheld at close distances it will look like everything in the viewfinder is curved. The 20mm AF lens is a very good performer, distortion (on the film)is very very low. Many reports of distortion are due to not understanding an extreme wide angle lens. I have not used either of the zooms you mention. Zooms tend to have a higher degree of distortion, especially at short focal lengths. I would suggest borrowing or renting a 20 to see if it is really what you want. A 20 can be difficult to use, you may want a tripod with levels when you use this lens.

[klix]

Rather than the 18-35mm, you can get a 20-35mm for a couple of hundred more -- which, IMO is well worth it. There are 2 in BGN condition at KEH right now for $695 each.

 

The 20-35mm will yield excellent results that is head and shoulders above the 18-35mm, and IMO, rivals the quality and sharpness of the 17-35mm, sans the AFS speed (but like you said, you didn't need that).

[steve_muntz]

I've never used the 18-35, but currently own the 20-35 and have owned the 20, all AF-D. The 20 prime was maybe a little sharper/less distortion than the 20-35, but both very good. If you shoot with the sun in the frame, the 20-35 is much more prone to alot of ghosting than the 20 prime because, like all zooms, it has more glass in it. I'd imagine that the 18-35 and 17-35 would be about the same in this respect. I sold the 20 once I got the 20-35, but I miss having it when I shoot with the sun in the frame. Here's a shot with the 20-35, note the upper left.<div></div>

[lindsay_robb]

If you do landscapes, are you not concerned about flare? The zooms are bound to give you some flare and in my experience, anything wider than 20mm gives too much distortion to horizons.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[ShunCheung]

If it were up to me, the 18-35 would be the easy answer. The 20mm is frequently too wide for landscape on a film body. For landscape photography, unless you have the horizon near the very top or bottom of the frame, a bit of distortion is not noticable; in any case, you can always only use the 20-35mm portion of a 18-35mm zoom if you are THAT concerned about distortion. For landscape, what is really useful is more like the 24-35mm part anyway. Just treat 18mm as bonus focal length and use it when necessary.

 

I just returned from a short landscape photography trip and I used two Nikkor lenses for the entire trip: 28-70 and 17-35, both mainly used between f5.6 and f11. I had a 24mm/f2.8, 80-200mm/f2.8 and 300mm/f4 with me but they stayed in the camera bag for the entire trip. You just can't beat zooming into the exact composition you want rather then being restricted by fixed 20, 24, 35mm ... angles of view.

 

Is flare a concern? Absolutely. But if you have the sun in the frame, my 24mm/f2.8 AF-D "prime" has a lot of problems with ghosting also; a super wide 20mm isn't going to fare very well either.

[bojan_steinb_cher]

To everybody:

Thank you very much for your kind answers!

I'll most likely get a 18-35 3.5-4.5 AF-D. It's way more practical to zoom than to walk (and I'm getting older) and 18 mm is a real bonus. Flare and ghosting are my major concern, but i guess that's not a zoom only problem

 

To Kevin Finerty:

Unfortunately I can't snap one on at a store and take a peek. No store nearby has a 20 2.8 AF-D in stock and it isn't much better with 18-35 3.5-45.5 AF-D.

 

To Dave Schneider:

There're no levels on my tripod, but use one in camera's hotshue when needed. Most of the time I can get enough help from grid in F80's viewfinder.

 

To kl ix:

I wouldn't mind buying a used lens, but second hand market here is almost nonexistent and getting stuff across Atlantic ocean (and customs for that matter) would be highly unpractical.

 

To Steve Muntz and Lindsay Robb:

I share your concern on ghosting and flare. So far, it's my main argument pro 20 2.8 AF-D.

 

To Shun Cheung:

I'll probably go the way you suggest.

 

One more question. How effective is 18-35 lens hood (HB-23)?

 

Regards,

 

Bojan

[chuck]

"One more question. How effective is 18-35 lens hood (HB-23)? "<p>

Not very. But it doesn't hurt.