How useful is that 20mm?

oscroft said:

There's quite a big difference going from 28 to 21.

Click to expand...

For the money of a 24mm, I'm thinking that a 20mm might be a better choice. What I'm worried about is the amount of separation between background and foreground in general landscape shots. Vertical plane subject matter would be no problem.

I personally prefer the following combinatiion of Nikkors: 24mm f2, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.4. This gives a good balance to my shooting, although since you're already using the 28mm I'd go 20mm, not 24mm. The Nikkor 20mm f2.8 AFD is a nice lens.

I found the 20mm lens very useful for shooting in tight places such as small rooms, the interior of cars, or the exterior of buildings located on crowded and narrow streets.

When I owned a 20mm, I normally carried the following lenses:
20mm f/3.5
35mm f/2
85mm f/1.8
180mm f/2.8

Some time ago, I sold the 20mm and replaced it with the 24mm and the 18mm. I now carry the following combination of Nikkors:
18mm f/3.5
24mm f/2
35mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8
180mm f/2.8

I have a 21
24
28
35 in M42, all pentex, I find that I use the 24mm and the 35mm more often than the 21 and 28mm. I find that the 21 and 24 are really too wide for landscapes, it seems that I pick the 35 most often for landscapes. But I think a very wide like a 20 or 21 is very useful when needed.