Advice for my wide angle lens

[Smaug01]

I have 4 Nikon bodies and several lenses.

I need something wider than 28 mm and preferably something in f/2.8. AF with a manual option would be good, even if AF is slower.

I'm a little paralyzed by the options at the moment.

AF Bodies:

• N90s
• N80

AF Lenses:

• Nikkor 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 D
• Nikkor 75-300 f/4.5-5.6
• Nikkor 50 f/1.8 D
• Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3

MF Bodies:

• FG
• FE2

MF Lenses:

• Nikkor AI 35 f/2
• Nikkor AI 50 f/1.4
• Nikkor AI-S 50 f/1.8 pancake
• Nikkor AI 105 f/2.5
• Tokina AT-X 28-85 f/3.5-4.5
• Vivitar (Kiron) 75-205 f/3.8

I don't know whether to go with MF or AF. If I go AF, I'd probably like a "pre-D" so it can be manually focused reasonably. (the Ds are geared too high, I find)

I'm thinking of maybe:

1. Nikkor AI 24 f/2.8 - I like this focal length, but is it enough wider than 28 to be worth acquiring?
2. Nikkor AI 20 f/2.8 - Is often too wide
3. Nikkor 20 f/2.8 AF-D
4. Nikkor 24 f/2.8 AF-D
5. Used ultrawide zoom of some sort? They're quite heavy compared to the primes, though, and I don't feel it's as critical to have zoom in a wide angle.
6. Others worth considering?

Budget is a consideration; should be < $200

 

[wiltw]

I find that 24mm is great for general use, whereas 20mm gets a little too 'artsy' for general use. Decades ago, like you I found 28mm was not enough...and 24mm was terrific. I have 20mm, but pulled it out far less frequently than 24mm. 20mm accentuates the nearby objects to the detriment of the items in the far background that shrink in the distance, to a greater degree than 24mm does, and that isn't what you need to do so much of.

 

[Stephen Schoof]

I find that 24mm is great for general use, whereas 20mm gets a little too 'artsy' for general use. Decades ago, like you I found 28mm was not enough...and 24mm was terrific. I have 20mm, but pulled it out far less frequently than 24mm. 20mm accentuates the nearby objects to the detriment of the items in the far background that shrink in the distance, to a greater degree than 24mm does, and that isn't what you need to do so much of.

I shoot mostly landscapes/travel, and this has been my experience as well, although I like both 24mm and 20mm. I have the 24mm 2.8 AF-D and the 20mm 2.8 AF-D and use them on both AF and MF bodies. The 24mm has always gotten more use since it gives a more natural look while being noticeably wider than 28mm. However there's no substitute for the 20mm if you really need to squeeze a lot in your image. I'd say get both, but if you have to choose go with 24mm if you want to preserve a natural look, and 20mm if you want an obvious wide-angle look that will be very different from the focal lengths you already have.

 

[MattKing]

I find that a 24mm and 35mm duo is perfect.

 

[awty]

My usual light kit comprises of a 28-105 1:3.5 - 4.5 D and a 20mm 1:2.8 AF, sometimes take a 135 mm f2.8 ai, just in case.
The 20mm is a great lens, 24mm is just not wide enough sometimes and isnt greatly wider than 28mm.

Fits in a compact carry bag.

No Bull!

 

[narsuitus]

At one time, the 35mm was my widest lens. When I felt the need for something wider, I purchased a 20mm f/3.5. The 20 worked great for a while untiI discovered that I needed something wider and faster. I sold the 20 and replaced it with a wider 18mm f/3.5 and a faster 24mm f/2. Much later, I added a 14mm f/2.8 wide angle.

When I do not want to carry my 14, 18, and 24mm prime lenses, I have the option of carrying a 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom.



Nikon Wide-Angles by Narsuitus, on Flickr



.



.

 

[Smaug01]

Lots of comments on focal length preferences; thanks!

...but no comments as to whether AF or MF is preferred.

MF = easier manual focusing on my MF bodies
AF = usable on all four bodies, but more difficult manual focusing on the MF bodies.

What do you prefer and why?

 

[Smaug01]

At one time, the 35mm was my widest lens. When I felt the need for something wider, I purchased a 20mm f/3.5. The 20 worked great for a while untiI discovered that I needed something wider and faster. I sold the 20 and replaced it with a wider 18mm f/3.5 and a faster 24mm f/2. Much later, I added a 14mm f/2.8 wide angle.

When I do not want to carry my 14, 18, and 24mm prime lenses, I have the option of carrying a 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom.

That doesn't really help with decision paralysis. Also, a couple of those lenses are well out of my stated price range.

 

[Stephen Schoof]

Lots of comments on focal length preferences; thanks!

...but no comments as to whether AF or MF is preferred.

MF = easier manual focusing on my MF bodies
AF = usable on all four bodies, but more difficult manual focusing on the MF bodies.

What do you prefer and why?

Much of my work involves setting hyperfocal distance, and I find I can do that fine with an AF lens on an MF body. I also primarily use AF bodies and switch to AF when I need pinpoint focus on a single plane. Finally, I bought my Nikon system in the mid-90s and never used many MF lenses, though I have a 100mm 2.8 Series E that I love. So I don't think AF lenses are too hard to focus manually, but maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.

The fact that the N80 cannot even meter with MF lenses would push me toward AF.

 

[Smaug01]

Much of my work involves setting hyperfocal distance, and I find I can do that fine with an AF lens on an MF body. I also primarily use AF bodies and switch to AF when I need pinpoint focus on a single plane. Finally, I bought my Nikon system in the mid-90s and never used many MF lenses, though I have a 100mm 2.8 Series E that I love. So I don't think AF lenses are too hard to focus manually, but maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.

What happened with Nikon AF lenses was that Nikon geared up the focusing so that it would focus with fewer turns from the AF motor in the body. The result was that a very small motion of the manual focusing ring made a large difference in focusing. This is why a lot of folks prefer manual focus lenses. Older AF Nikkors (pre-D) were not geared as high, and are easier to focus. When I bought my 75-300, I deliberately gave up some focusing speed in order to have more resolution when focusing manually.

You make a good point though: critical focus is not important, most of the time, for wide angle lenses.

The fact that the N80 cannot even meter with MF lenses would push me toward AF.

Yeah, that one will only ever be used with AF lenses. I knew this prior to purchase, but when the body presented itself for $10, I couldn't turn it down. Other than the aforementioned metering issue, I LOVE the camera. It's like a smaller, lightened N90s.

I think I'm going to get an AF 24/2.8 and hopefully an RMC Tokina 17/3.5 in manual focus. Hyperfocal should take care of just about everything on the 17 mm, even at f/3.5. Looking on ebay, the Sigmas and Quantarays (re-branded Sigma) are only very slightly less expensive than Nikkors. That's baffling.

Thanks for your advice, Stephen.

 

[narsuitus]

6. Others worth considering?

That doesn't really help with decision paralysis. Also, a couple of those lenses are well out of my stated price range.

Sorry my previous post did not help with your decision paralysis. I was responding to your question of others worth considering.

If I were looking for a 20 or 21mm F-mount lens for less than $200, I would go to the KEH.com website and see what was available. Right now, KEH has six lenses that fall within your price range and your focal length range.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I liked the 21mm and 28mm lenses until I got a Tamron 28mm to 300mm AF zoom lens, a Nikon 28mm to 200mm AF zoom lens and then I added a Nikon 20mm to 35mm AF zoom lens.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have opted for vivitar 20 3.8. No plastic lens. Extremely close focusing.
It is hard to miss focus with 20mm lens, even if it is MF

 

[narsuitus]

... and then I added a Nikon 20mm to 35mm AF zoom lens.

I also recommend the Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 auto focus zoom (lens on right). However, I doubt if you will find one within your stated price range.



Nikon Zooms by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[blockend]

You don't say what it's for. If the lens is for people, it depends how comfortable you are shooting close. Below 24mm, you're pretty much in people's ears. For landscape focal length is a matter of taste, personally I find the perspective of landscapes below 28mm (35mm, in truth), extremely clichéd.

 

[138S]

I need something wider than 28 mm and preferably something in f/2.8. AF with a manual option would be good, even if AF is slower. < $200

If 20mm is ok then Nikon 20mm f/2.8 NIKKOR AF or AF-D

A bit of coma in the corners when wide open, but very sharp if a stopped a bit. Lightweight, fast AF and cheap.

 

[choiliefan]

I have an older AF Nikkor 18-35 3.5-4.5D which is a decent walk-around lens.
Ken Rockwell liked it so it has to be good, no?
https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/1835.htm

 

[Alan Gales]

I used to shoot a Contax 139. For wide angle, I owned the 25mm and 35mm and mostly shot the 25mm of the two. I loved that lens! I wanted the 18mm but it cost a fortune so I couldn't afford it.

Years later I bought a Pentax 645Nll. I wanted the 35mm and ended up getting one for free after buying a large kit and parting it all out and keeping the 35. Being medium format the 35mm felt wider than my 25mm on my 35mm camera. I liked it but I didn't end up shooting it all that much because it felt too wide for me for most subjects.

For me, the 24mm or 25mm hits a sweet spot on a 35mm camera. If you buy a 24mm then you don't really need the 28mm any more and can sell it to offset costs. Or you can try a 20mm. If you buy right then you can always sell it for close to what you paid if it doesn't work out.

 

[Smaug01]

Sorry my previous post did not help with your decision paralysis. I was responding to your question of others worth considering.

If I were looking for a 20 or 21mm F-mount lens for less than $200, I would go to the KEH.com website and see what was available. Right now, KEH has six lenses that fall within your price range and your focal length range.

Thanks! I like all your gear pix on Flickr; you've got quite a nice Nikon collection.

I have opted for vivitar 20 3.8. No plastic lens. Extremely close focusing.
It is hard to miss focus with 20mm lens, even if it is MF

Thanks Ko.Fe., I will look into that. I'm not averse to aftermarket primes; they can be quite good and are often forgotten. By the way, I recognized your username from DPReview forum. This place seems more friendly.

You don't say what it's for. If the lens is for people, it depends how comfortable you are shooting close. Below 24mm, you're pretty much in people's ears. For landscape focal length is a matter of taste, personally I find the perspective of landscapes below 28mm (35mm, in truth), extremely clichéd.

I don't shoot a lot of landscapes these days; more like cityscapes. In the city, one can only back up so far, which is why I'm finding 28 mm quite limiting. As for what I shoot, it's a bit of everything. I'm probably 60% family photographer, 15% street, 15% cityscapes, and 10% everything else.

I have an older AF Nikkor 18-35 3.5-4.5D which is a decent walk-around lens.
Ken Rockwell liked it so it has to be good, no?
https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/1835.htm

People like to put him down, but I find he's spot-on, most of the time. I like how he's not sponsored, except by his links to ebay and Amazon.

...For me, the 24mm or 25mm hits a sweet spot on a 35mm camera. If you buy a 24mm then you don't really need the 28mm any more and can sell it to offset costs. Or you can try a 20mm. If you buy right then you can always sell it for close to what you paid if it doesn't work out.

Thanks Alan! I think I'm going to look for an autofocus 24 and an old manual focus prime between 17 and 20. Vivitar, Tokina, Sigma, etc. I probably can get a Vivitar like Ko.Fe.'s for $50 or less.


In case anyone is curious, these two focal lengths are neck-and-neck: 5 votes for 24 and 4 for 20. Also, a single convincing vote for the Nikkor 18-35 f/3.5-4.5. I like this f-stop range. It's fast enough to be noticeably better than a 4-5.6, (esp. for autofocusing) but not so fast that it makes the lenses big and heavy and expensive, like 2.8 does.

I'm heading into the city tomorrow to do some street shooting with my girlfriend. I'll stop in Central Camera and see what they have used.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

recognized your username from DPReview forum. This place seems more friendly.

I registered and posted at DPR only once. If posted at all. I wrote to mods about hate post regarding Soviet, Russians under Lomography lens review comments.

 

[bimmey]

The only lens you mention that I've had experience with is the 24mm 2.8 AI. I was very impressed with it's IQ, and it is considerably wider than than a 28mm focal length.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I had the Minolta 21mm lens for years, great for the right compositions, but not frequently used.

 

[Smaug01]

Guys, I had been watching a manual focus Tokina AT-X 24-40 f/2.8 on ebay. I dropped it, as I decided I wanted AF. But the seller discounted it 17% or something and offered it to me. I couldn't resist. Being a zoom, hyperfocal focusing might be out. (we'll see how good the markings are) But at any rate, it's still a 24/2.8 I was thinking about, and also a 40/2.8. I've never been disappointed with a Tokina lens.

On a side note: With a heavy heart, I sent my FE2 back to Roberts Camera today for warranty repair. (or replacement or refund) But I will still have my trusty little FG and N90s on which to put this lens. One thing about the FGs: they aren't as heavy duty as other Nikons, but they also tend not to have been used as hard, as pros never considered them seriously.

 

[Smaug01]

I thought this episode was over, but no. I got the lens yesterday and it looked perfect. Just mint, everywhere. Included case UV filter, C-PL filter and everything. Optics looked good, snappy aperture.
I got it home, mounted it on a body and it was hazy as could be.
...so I sent it back today with a heavy heart. Back on the hunt.

 

[jim10219]

I thought this episode was over, but no. I got the lens yesterday and it looked perfect. Just mint, everywhere. Included case UV filter, C-PL filter and everything. Optics looked good, snappy aperture.
I got it home, mounted it on a body and it was hazy as could be.
...so I sent it back today with a heavy heart. Back on the hunt.

Probably just as well. I don't have experience with that lens, but I do have a Tokina AT-X Pro II 28-70/2.8 and I'm not blown away by it. It's supposed to be highly revered, being a very similar design to an Angenieux model and having an HLD lens element, but in reality, it's not as sharp as most kit lenses available today (but does offer a slight increase in speed). It's not a bad lens. And I'm sure back in it's day it compared very favorably against most other zooms. But compared to a modern zoom or a prime lens from the era, it only ever rises to acceptable. It's good enough to still see use. But it's never thrilled me to use it.