fred_mackintosh

<p>The 28/2.8 AI-S is hard to beat. Much better than the 28/2.0 IMO (I bought both a pre-AI that did not impress, then got an AI-S that was exactly the same: soft wide open, and inferior to the 2.8 at all common apertures on both film as well as FX, sold both). Not sure why the 28/2.0 has such a following. </p>

<p>As for the 2.8 (AI-S), I have noticed the best performance at distance (e.g., for landscapes) is often NOT at the infinity stop. When used with this in mind, I have never been disappointed with it, even at distance. </p>

<p>Probably too late to chime-in, but I have very different experiences with the 28/2.0. Based on very positive comments on the web, I decided I needed to try it. I first tried a mint early one, which disappointed. I then found a very good AI-S copy and it performed exactly the same. So, I do not think either was a bad copy. But, neither one was close the level of multiple other mid-range wides I have or have used on film, FX and DX: 28/2.8 AI-S, 17-35/2.8@28, 35/1.4 AI-S, 35/2.0 ZF...</p>

<p>The 28/2.0 was very soft wide open and even by 2.8 was still lagging the others above. Its performance at 2.0 was, in fact, very similar to the 35/1.4 at 1.4 (usable, but with more "character" wide open than desired usually). I saw no reason to keep either of the 28/2.0s...</p>

<p>In the end, although bigger than I like to cary most of the time, the 17-35 is hard to beat with any prime in the 17-28 range. (By 35, there are better primes.) But, even including the much-loved Zeiss 21ZF (just as big and heavy!), nothing I have used bests my beat-up 17-35 with squeaky motor in the range up to 28. I am looking forward to trying the 28/1.8 as a lighter alternative.</p>

<p>Hi Borgis,</p>

<p>I always wanted to try the super-cute little 4.0 version. I have held it in my hands. It really is tiny. Maybe I should. But, I did also try the equally tiny Voigtlander 20/3.5... Not good. About the same as the 3.5 AI-S and more expensive. I was surprised, since I find the 40/2.0 SL-II in nikon mount superb. Anyway, I think between my 21ZF and my two 20/2.8s, I have (more than) enough wide angle, especially in view of the 24/2.8 that I also like very much (better than the 20/2.8). </p>

<p>I have learned with both 20/2.8s (AI-S and AF-D) that you have to be careful with focus in order to get the most out of the lenses. But, side-by side with my Zeiss ZF monster, the 20/2.8 AI-s is a very attractive package when traveling light. </p>

<p>I do well over 50% of my shooting vertical. Although I am 100% consistent with right hand up for SLRs, going way back to before my first camera with a "vertical button", I find that to be awkward with Leica-M or Zeiss ZI. In order not to have my left hand interfere with the viewfinder/rangefinder, I find my left hand in a very awkward position that is not so good for stability, and my right tends to bear the weight, increasing motion/vibration. With a rangefinder, the natural position for the focusing/aperture hand (left) is on the opposite side of the lens from the rangefinder, i.e., on the bottom when horizontal and on the LEFT when the right hand is down. </p>

<p>Even with a m-motor for better grip, I just don't like the right hand up... I probably just never learned correctly. I did only start using the M late in life... In the end, what counts is what works for you. </p>

<p>Great camera! I have both a mint FE-2 and mint FE. We'll see which lasts longer. I suspect the less high-tech shutter on the FE will win, in the end. I somehow also prefer the feel and sound of the FE shutter. Interesting, I have noticed that on auto, my FE can accurately meter and expose up to 1/4000 sec. So, in any practical sense, there is no difference for me between the two cameras. In fact, I consider the FE battery check as more than compensation for not having the FE-2's TTL flash. </p>

<p>But, either way, great cameras! Get yourself a new one and enjoy it while film lasts. </p>

<p>At least the AI-S lens seems to suffer from a design/construction glitch. I have also had a loose element, but "fixed" it myself, and am happy with the lens. </p>

<p>I have actually had 3 of the 20/2.8 lenses over the years. After my first AI-S one from the 80's was stolen in the 90's, I decided about three years ago to buy a new AI-S one again. I very much liked my original one. They are still available, along with the newer AF-D version. This second AI-S of mine is from a late serial number block (3...) indicating post 2006 manufacture (details can be found on Roland Vink's site: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html). I purchased it at B&H. </p>

<p>I noticed immediately that it had a significant rattle. I also immediately noticed that it was a very poor performer on my D200. I identified that the front element was loose! (Again, this was straight out of the box, purchased new.) I was quite disappointed, but somehow never got around to taking it back to B&H or at least contacting them. (I am sure they would have taken it back or replaced. I have never had a real problem in dealing with B&H over the years.) But, for whatever reason, I just never did anything about it. I tightened the front element carefully myself, and noticed it performed well on film bodies (not quite at the level of my Zeiss 21 for G-series...). Once I got a D700, I also discovered the lens worked well on FX. I even found that it worked well on D300s/DX. Not sure what the problem was with my D200, but the lens just never sharpened up on that body, and it was uneven right to left. </p>

<p>Anyway, as strange as it may have seemed to have a loose front element on a new lens, by just tightening it myself, I found that I have an excellent lens. I even later compared it with a Zeiss ZF 21/2.8 that I got a great deal on. The Nikon is not as good, but for the size and price is still an excellent lens. Stopped down to 5.6-8, there is little difference between the two on FX/film. Given the extreme vignetting of the ZF at 2.8, the advantage of the ZF at 2.8-4.0 is usually not worth the size and weight. Anyway, after being initially very disappointed with my 20/2.8 AI-S, I eventually developed a lot of respect for it. So much so that I eventually decided to get an AF-D one (used in good shape), just for the chip (e.g., on F5 and F80s). To my disappointment again, the AF-D one rattles like crazy. The whole front section of the AF assembly wobbles! This time, it is not the front optical element that moves. Again, I felt like sending it back. But, surprisingly, it preforms at the same level as the AI-S. In fact, it seems to marginally outperform the AI-S in the 4.0-5.6 range. One thing I have noticed, however, is that it is definitely better to manually focus the AF-D than trust the AF. With careful focus at mid apertures, it performs very well. With AF, it is not so reliable. </p>

<p>So, wobbles and all, I still find the 20/2.8 Nikons to be excellent lenses, especially when one considers their size. One can see why they were so valued/popular in their day. I have not tried the small 4.0 version, but the 3.5 AI-S that the 2.8 replaced is a poor performer, by comparison. I just advise you to try to tighten the front element carefully by hand. If that solved the wobble, you will likely be happy with the lens. I wish they had opted for a more robust construction, like most of their other AI/AI-S era lenses. </p>

<p>Blue cast, I can handle. I agree with those who have pointed out that it is easy to deal with, and is also a natural consequence of shade. But, as for Ektar, I just don’t get it. I was very excited when it came out, but Ektar keeps disappointing me, specifically with respect to color. I have no complaints about Ektar’s grain, but its colors are just not predictable, or maybe even reproducible, at least for me. Perhaps I am doing something wrong, but I have even tried it in my nearly perfectly metering F6 with bracketing for both 2/3 over and underexposure. It just does not work for me, while Portra 160VC (for instance) is almost always perfect. I also suspect Ektar may have lower resolution (acutance?) than Provia 160VC. I am pretty sure a number of E6 films (e.g., Provia, Velvia) outperform Ektar in this regard, obviously with lower exposure latitude.</p>

<p>Sometimes, Ektar is fine. It seems to perform well in low contrast situations. But, with a blue sky, sometimes I get a nice blue, and sometimes it is more turquoise! This can happen on the same roll, so I don’t think this has to do with development. I made the mistake the first time I used Ektar to intentionally overexpose it by ~1/2 stop, as I had seen suggested. This seemed to aggravate the coloration problems. I find no advantages of Ektar over the Portra 160s, which are far more predictable for color. I recently started hording my current favorite, 160VC, while it is still available. As far as I can tell, that is Kodak’s “slide-like” C-41 film. I have very consistent and good results from that, even for someone like me who used to be an E6-only guy (hence, the initial excitement over Ektar’s introduction!). So far, the new 160 also seems excellent, with possibly even better color balance than the VC, without much if any loss of contrast, saturation. At least, the new 160 seems to need NO tweaking of color balance in scans from my coolscan V. The prior Portras needed minor magenta suppression. But, I just can’t figure out a way to get good scans from ~30-40% of my Ektar frames.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The comparison of AF-D 1.4 and 1.8 is interesting. I have come to realize that my 1.8 AF-D is really great. I have not owned anything that is more uniform in terms of sharpness across the frame. It does, however, have a bit more color fringing (longitudinal CA?), as in Andrew's posts, than do the AI-S 85/2.0, 105/1.8 and 105/2.5. </p>

<p>I think the 85/2.0 AI or AI-s is perhaps the best bargain of the bunch. It seems to be underapreciated. Also, I love its small size. At least my sample is only a hair behind the 1.8AF-D in corner/border sharpness (not enough to really matter in practice, I expect). It is a little better behaved in terms of color fringing and is a little more pleasing wide open than the 1.8. The latter may be sharper, but when open takes on a hazy, bluish cast. </p>

<p>In the 105 range, I LOVE both the 1.8 and 2.5. The OP asks about the 135/2.0. If you want fast, consider the 105/1.8. It is a bit better than the 2.5 at 2.5-4.0. It is not much heavier or larger, really. Sadly, I just tend to gravitate to the 85mm length more than 105. So, my 85/2.0 still get more use than any other long lens. </p>

<p>I have no experience with the 135/2.0 AIS, but I did have the DC. I stupidly sold it, and it would cost me much more than I got for it now to buy a good used one. I did not like the color fringing near wide open, but I sold it before getting a D700, and it would have been nice to try on FX. </p>

<p>As I think many have, I got a bit too caught-up in the game of searching for THE BEST lens in the 100mm +/- range. (I probably a 35 or 85/90 for 90% of my shooting.) I tend to prefer the AI-S era lenses or their equivalents for build. I have a hard time taking a plastic AF seriously, even if I have come to respect the newer lenses for their optics! Among the lenses I have owned and put through the paces on DX/FX and film, I tried several Leica R-lenses (with leitax mount). In the short tele range, I have tried both the Elmarit-R 90 (last version) and Summilux-R 80. I was actually rather disappointed, and concluded that their legend is mostly due to the name. Nikon 85/1.8 AF-D, 85/2.0 AI-S and the 105s (1.8 and 2.5) outperformed the Elmarit, at least for my purposes. Even the Summilux was not worth the price premium. I tend to do more architecture than portraits. Leicas (also the M-series and wide R-series lenses I have owned) tend to have noticeably more curvature of field. It really shows up with architecture. In such shooting, even the Summilux was not up to the Nikons. (I know, that is heresy.) I ultimately sold all my Leica R lenses (including 35 Elmarit-R, and 35 and 50 Summicron-Rs, all last versions). Ultimately, with the better Nikon AIS and AF offerings, as well as the Zeiss ZF lenses (I have the great 21/2.8 and and 35/2.0!) outperformed the Leicas. </p>

<p>Anyway, after much experimentation, I concluded that the minor differences between the "best" lenses just aren't enough to worry so much about. What counts is what you can actually get with them. There are some great, inexpensive (used) AI-S era lenses, like my 85/2.0 and 105s. I don't think I am missing anything that will really matter in practice. One of the great things about, say, the 85/2.0 and 105/2.5 is size. Sure, there may be a portrait that might be a little different character if I were to take it with the (now gone) Summilux-R 80. But, I'm more likely to actually carry around one of the smaller Nikon's, and both are capable of killer shots (e.g., the famous "Afgan Girl" shot taken with the 105/2.5, right?). </p>

<p>Speed is not to useful in macro, as it makes for very narrow DOF. Also, AF is much less useful in macro work than other photography. My favorite is the compact, inexpensive classic: Nikon 55/2.8 AIS. Great on FX, DX, and (of course) film. </p>

<p>I have purchased more F3s over the years than I like to admit. With F3s, appearance is almost irrelevant. But, expect some service, ranging from light seals (cheap) to full CLA (~$200, New York prices). The only dog I ever got was sold as "new in box". It looked totally new, but must have been stored in a damp basement... smelled moldy inside and had some electronic issues (probably the mold!) I took it back for a refund. </p>

<p>Lots of use by a pro is one thing, abuse is another. I have a "P" style one in nicely-brassed condition. Clearly used hard, but no serious indentations. All it needed was a minor mirror adjustment for focus, and it works like a charm. </p>

<p>I am not sure the premium commanded by the "P" model is really worth it. Having the flash synch on top is not that important. Besides, it is not TTL. Also, the placement of the shutter button is not as convenient, I find. But then that P-model was always meant to be on an MD4 (as is any F3, in my view). The regular F3 is plenty tough enough. In the end, I tend to grab first my F3P (just because of its nice brassy appearance, not because its a P) with MD4, but I replace the prism with a regular DE-2. It is smaller/lower and better magnification (I don't wear glasses). </p>

<p>KEH is good. I have never bought BNG from them, but from my experience their EX is anyone else's EX+ and their EX+ could be called Mint-. </p>

<p>From the OP, I gather that it is not so much AF as the chip (for metering) that counts. So, I would suggest the CV (Voigtlander) 40 SLII and Nikon 35/2.0 AF-D, in that order. Both easily fit the $500 budget new. </p>

<p>I would second James' comments on the CV (Voigtlander) 40 SLII. It is an amazing package! Tiny, sharp, great little hood, chipped for cameras such as digital Dx0, film F80, and I guess the S3... I am not sure I would say it is better than the ZF (which I also have), but the size difference is huge and any (possible) optical advantage of the ZF is small. My only slight gripe about the CV40 has to do with ergonomics. I sometimes find the aperture ring a bit narrow and stiff to use. </p>

<p>Among the Nikon choices, I have had 2.0 O.C, 2.0 AIS (2x), 1.4 AIS (2x) and 2.0AF-D. The manual 2.0s are great bargains used. The AF-D is particularly good on DX, where its lower performance in the borders/corners is not relevant. If you happen to have or can get the 1.4, it is great, but probably not worth the price, unless you want its special "character" near wide open. For most practical purposes, the AF-D should work very well. Even though not so sharp wide open in the borders, stopped down a little (4.0-8.0) I have had very impressive results on film with the AF-D (including an F3, on which it handles well). </p>

<p>The Samyang seems HUGE. I can't see going for that over the other 35/40 options. Size does matter. Other things being equal, go with a more compact package. </p>

<p>So, I'd say go for the CV40 if manual focus (with chip) is ok. If you want AF, you will probably be well served by the AF-D. And, any difference between 35 and 40 angle of view is not worth worrying about. </p>

<p>The Voigtlander (Cosina) 40mm f/2 is excellent, and super compact. It may well replace 35mm for me, but on full-frame. For wide angle on DX, I have found the 24/2.8AIS (should be same as the current AFD version) to be very good---better than the highly regarded 12-24/4 zoom. By comparison, I did NOT have good experiences with the 20/2.8AIS on DX. The 24/2.8 is also compact and reasonably priced. It will be equivalent to a 35 on full-frame. It may not be very fast at 2.8, but given the effective speed advantage of current digital sensors, it is a very practical (effective) 35mm prime lens on DX.</p>

<p>My experience with the 35/2.0AFD on DX is that it is excellent from about f/2.8 on. </p>

<p>24/2.8, 35/2.0 and CV40/2.0 are all in the same (reasonable) price range. </p>

<p>I have had 2 F4s. They are nice cameras, with their traditional controls yet modern features... But, this seems to be one 'pro' camera where Nikon screwed up the metering! I'm not sure your problem is realated to mine, but it might be.</p>

<p>Both my F4s (and a total of 3 different prisms I have tried) all seem to meter just fine in all modes (spot, center-weighted and matrix), provided the lens has an aperture of ~2.8 or larger. But, they consistently mess up (over expose) any stop-down metering of lenses beyond about f/4.0, and the problem gets progressively worse as you stop down. It also appears in all modes (including the spot meter, that should be through the body and not prism). I have never seen this with any other Nikons going back to the F-F3, and continuing to F5, and all the FM/FE/FM2/FE2/FM3a bodies. I am quite familiar with proper technique in stop-down metering, but I simply cannot use the F4, as much as I otherwise like it, for macro work or with small apertures. I first noticed the problem when the F4 was the only camera that had a problem metering with my Leica-R lenses converted to Nikon mount, which all have to be used 'stopped-down'. I also seem to recall Bjørn Rørslett commenting about the F4 being less reliable for metering stopped-down than other bodies. </p>

<p>Of course, another possibility is the exposure compensation setting on the prism. There is a window on the side of the prism. Does it say '0'? </p>

<p>Leti,</p>

<p>I have the 135/2.8, and have used it on my D700. In short, an excellent lens and excellent combo. </p>

<p>More precisely, my 135 is a (just) pre-AI, that I had converted to AI. It is from the period just prior to the AI, and the lens has otherwise modern features: it the 'compact' version including multi-coating and built-in hood. My understanding is that it is the same optical formula (5/4) as the AI and AIS version. It does, however, have the long focus throw of the AI version. In this regard, the AIS version may be a little better for handling. </p>

<p>I did some direct comparisons with my 105/2.5AIS, and concluded that the 135 is of the same level. The 135 is fully usable wide open, both in terms of sharpness and flare, and is remarkably balanced in its performance over the whole f/2.8-11 range. My experience with the 105, by comparison, is that it suffers still a bit from flare until f/4.0. The 135 seems better in this regard, although it might have a little less contrast in the mid aperture range than the 105. (This was only an impression, not based on direct tests). The 135 actually seemed sharper at 2.8 than the famed 105. So, I strongly recommend the 135/2.8, which I see as a largely overlooked lens in the AI/AIS line. It is still relatively compact, has a handy built-in hood, and (perhaps best of all) can be easily had for under $100. What a bargain it is. Mine is in mint shape and cost ~$70 or so. </p>

<p>Having said all that, sadly, I rarely use the 135. It has nothing to do with its performance, only my shooting style. Among the longer lenses, I reach first for my 85/2.0 (also, great performer on FX and quite compact), and secondarily 105. If I need longer, I go for the 180. The 135 just fits in a awkward slot for me. But, again, the lens is excellent. If you find 135 a useful length, go for it. You may find it the best bargain ever. </p>

<p>Yea, just because something is newer does not mean that it is better. If one wants a big, fancy new zoom, fine. But, don't assume it will be better than a 30 yr old lens just because it is new! Sometimes, as Bjorn noted, the older lens is simply better. It is not a question of wanting to put a cheap lens on an expensive camera. The speed of the lens, as John notes, is a fundamental advantage of most primes. Sometimes, you need a 35/1.4 or a 50/1.2, or a ... And, I would be very surprised if the 24-70/2.8 beats either of those lens at 2.8... </p>

<p>I have been very happy, even sometimes amazed, with many AI/AIS lenses on the D700. The D700 really makes some of those classic lenses shine, or at least live up to their great potential. Among my favorites are the 24/2.8AIS, 35/1.4AIS, 50/1.2AIS, 85/2.0AIS, and 105/1.8AIS. I would be surprised if even the latest zoom can outperform my 24. But, even if it does, it would likely be by very little. I still have little interest in the big modern zooms. One cannot beat the compact size, construction and handling of the AIS era lenses. </p>

<p>I disagree with the claim that modern AF nikkors tend to outperform the older AI/AIS lenses. My experience has been just the opposite. The 85/2.0AIS vs the 85/1.8AFD is one example: the older lens is at least as sharp, and has some better characteristics in the out of focus areas (I think this is due to the IF design of the newer lens). My 50/1.2AIS way outperforms the 50/1.4AFD. This may not seem a fair comparison. But, my mint used 1.2 cost about the same as the new 1.4AFD. </p>

<p>I have been very happy, even sometimes amazed, with many AI/AIS lenses on the D700. The D700 really makes some of those classic lenses shine, or at least live up to their great potential. Among my favorites are the 24/2.8AIS, 35/1.4AIS, 50/1.2AIS, 85/2.0AIS, and 105/1.8AIS. I would be surprised if even the latest zoom can outperform my 24. But, even if it does, it would likely be by very little. I still have little interest in the big modern zooms. One cannot beat the compact size, construction and handling of the AIS era lenses. </p>

<p>I disagree with the claim that modern AF nikkors tend to outperform the older AI/AIS lenses. My experience has been just the opposite. The 85/2.0AIS vs the 85/1.8AFD is one example: the older lens is at least as sharp, and has some better characteristics in the out of focus areas (I think this is due to the IF design of the newer lens). My 50/1.2AIS way outperforms the 50/1.4AFD. This may not seem a fair comparison. But, my mint used 1.2 cost about the same as the new 1.4AFD. </p>

<p>I am very happy with my 35/1.4AIS, on D200, D700, and film. It is a great lens, with a couple of issues one has to look out for. (See Bjorn's review. My experience is similar.) It is not perfect. Flare can be an issue at 1.4 and even 2.0 sometimes. But, I have been very pleased with it in low light situations, particularly if lower contrast. Candle light is enough to for good results with the D700+35/1.4! It is the FIRST lens I grab for my D700. </p>

<p>By the way, Mihai, if you like the Nikon 50/1.2, you might find the 35/1.4 to be very similar. They have similar lowered contrast/flare wide open, but still with good resolution. 1-2 stops in, they start to perform very well. </p>

<p>I have not used the Zeiss ZF. I imagine it can do somewhat better than the 30+ yr old Nikon 35/1.4 design. But, with very few exceptions, I can get excellent results with by Nikon from 2.0, and certainly 2.8 on. Yes, it would be nice to have that level of performance at 1.4, but the Zeiss does not even provide that as an option. Interestingly, I have some experience with another classic, the Leica Summicron-R 35 (last model) on my D700, thanks to Leitax mount. It is a very nice lens, but I can't say it is actually better than the Nikon. In particular, I would not replace my Nikon with the Leica. On film, I have some comparisons of the Nikon to two modern Zeiss rangefinder 35s: the 2.0 for contax G and the 2.0 ZM on Leica. As far as I can tell they are pretty comparable to the Nikon, except that the Zeiss ZM may handle flare wide open better than the Nikon. But, in terms of resolution, it seems no better. I would be surprised if the ZF is really better than the ZM, given the constraints of the SLR designs. The ZF is pretty big and clunky to handle, I find. </p>

<p>I had very back luck with the 20-35 Nikon. And it is a shame, since it is still a (barely) manageable size. Perhaps unfortunately, I got rid of it before getting the D700. But, it was utterly useless on DX, and noticeably soft on film, except, maybe stopped WAY down. </p>

<p>Mihai,</p>

<p>My 20/2.8 is the AIS one, and not the AFD. Perhaps there is a difference, although they are supposed to be the same optically. I have not noticed worse vignetting than usual with wide angles. I did notice that it does NOT work at all well on DX (major areas of softness!). But, on the D700, it is about the same as other wide angles, but both Nikon and Leica-R that I have used on the D700 and on film: first stop not useable for anything critical, second still not good in the corners, and just fine by 2 stops in (5.6). My 24/2.8AIS and especially 28/2.8AIS are better.</p>

<p>I agree the 20/2.8 is not a GREAT lens on the D700, but it is good, especially considering its size. It is fine up to say 11x14 or maybe 13x19 from 5.6-11. Considering the still relatively compact size of the 20AIS, I think it was a pretty good compromise for its day. I may well replace it with the VC, if that performs better. </p>

<p>Zach,</p>

<p>A word of caution: if you test this first on DX (D200), definitely wait until you try to D700 before deciding whether to keep the lens. I have found HUGE differences in the performance of some "legacy" lenses (pre AI, AI and AIS) on D200 and D700. In particular, I was VERY disappointed with my 20AIS on D200, and only realized the potential it has with film and D700. </p>

<p>For me, a HUGE advantage of one of the serious SLRs (D200, 300, 700) over the consumer ones is the old lenses! There are some great old/manual lenses out there. I almost never wind up using the modern "chipped" lenses. And, with a 90, that is all you can use, no? </p>

<p>Zach,</p>

<p>I will be very interested to see how the VC20 works out for you. I have been toying with the same idea. I currently have 2 of Nikon's 20's (2.8 and 3.5, both AIS). They are mediocre on DX. On FX, the 2.8 is quite good, as it's reputation on film would suggest. (Mihai, note that the test you mentioned was on DX... things on FX can be very different). I now have the Nikon 18mm/3.5 AIS (quite nice, so far), and am considering getting rid of the 20's for the new VC, which is nice and compact. </p>

<p>By the way, I do not understand the argument about balance. My D700 is quite nice, thank you very much, with compact lenses, like 50/1.8. Just because we might wish the D700 to be lighter still, does not mean that you have to hang a lead brick like the 14-24 or Zeiss 21 monster on it to make it feel right! The Zeiss 21 may marginally outperform the 20/2.8AIS on FX while pixel peeping, but having a compact lens is still important in the field, so to speak. Nikon's little 20 was a very well-liked and popular lens with professionals in the film days for a reason. Interestingly, I have made some comparisons of the 20/2.8AIS on film to the SUPERB Zeiss 21 for the contax G cameras. The latter has some design advantages in that it does not need to clear a mirror. It is compact and even better optically than the monstrous SLR Zeiss 21 (old or new), according to Zeiss own info. The Zeiss G-21 outperforms the Nikon if you pixel peep (or examine transparencies with a magnifier). But, the differences become indistinguishable in practice: e.g., in the f/5.6-11 range for enlargements of 11x14 or even 13x19. Wide open, the Zeiss noticeably better. The little Zeiss G-21 also is distortion-free, in contrast to both Nikon 20 and Zeiss/ZF 21!</p>

<p>Anyway, I am eyeing the little VC20, so quite interested to hear your experiences on D700 and film. </p>

<p>Be careful of getting a full-frame fisheye expecting it to produce high quality "de-fished" images. I'll bet you'd be better off with even a cheap zoom.</p>

<p>It is asking a LOT of a fisheye with its effectively highly compressed corners to produce results capable of significant enlargement (say, 11-14 and up). I do not have experience with 16mm on FX, but have used the very nice 10.5 on DX. De-fished, it is simply not capable of producing acceptable 11x14 (probably not even 8x10), at least for my applications/taste. </p>

<p>If 20 is not wide enough for you, as I suspect to be the case since I find it too close to my better 24 to be of much use, consider the 18/3.5AIS, which can be had for under $500. I have found it to work very well on the D700, in spite of Bjorn Rorslett's reservations, which made me carefully test the lens before deciding to buy it. </p>

<p>Sorry, but the zooms just don't do it for me. The high quality ones are just too big, and are usually inferior to even decent primes (the 14-24 may well be an exception, but it is a MONSTER). The zoom ring is not the only way to compose a good shot!</p>

<p>While I agree with the view that if you are willing to put down the money for a D700 you should not skimp on the quality of the glass that you put on it, quality and price do not always go together. One thing that I continue to be amazed by is how the D700 can really shine with some humble/affordable (but, well made!) Nikon (and Leica, with Leitax converter) lenses from the 70s and 80s. It is easy to find some, especially Nikon AIS prime lenses for ~$200-300 that do very well on the D700. Some of my favorites include 24/2.8AIS, 35/1.4AIS (unfortunately, not under $300!), 85/2.0AIS, as well as some of the 50s and 105s. Effectively, I find that the D700 reaches nearly its full potential with these very affordable lenses. </p>

<p>Kent,</p>

<p>I know the 12-24 "covers" the FX frame, in the sense that an image is formed over the full frame. But, from my experience is is not a useful image much outside of the DX area. I have not done a systematic test, but it seemed to me that, for instance, shooting the 12-24 set at 16 or 18 only formed a sharp image comparable to what a 24 would cover. A significant part of the frame in the corners and borders was very soft in the 16-24 range, even at small aperture. Can you get a sharp image over the full frame? </p>

<p>I still say, buy a 24/2.8 AIS for ~$200. It is an amazing bargain, there should be plenty available, and it is very nice/compact to use. Then, if you want more, go for a 20 or 18 fixed focal length. You'll still be well under $1000 total. The lenses will be more compact and produce better images than probably any of the zoom options, save the monster 14-24. </p>