Nikkor 18mm 3.5 AIs vs. 20mm 2.8 AIs ?

[brianentz]

I'm trying to decide which lens to next add to my collection of MF nikkor prime lenses. It's between the Nikkor 18mm 3.5 AIs and the 20mm 2.8 AIs. Just wondering if anyone has any input to help me decide.

 

[Xmas]

If you don't have people on your shots you need both cause there is a big difference.

If you do people you don't need either.

 

[MDR]

Look on flickr or some other site to view examples of photographs made with these lenses and then decide 2mm isn't much but still a viewable difference. Personally I would go for the 18mm

 

[brianentz]

What I'm wondering about is sharpness. I see reviews that give the award to each.

 

[flavio81]

I've read that the 18mm isn't a very good Nikkor. In any case, the one with a big UFO-like sunshade.

 

[GarageBoy]

In the UWA world, sharpness should be secondary to the field of view you want
On the wide side, every mm counts

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

What I'm wondering about is sharpness. I see reviews that give the award to each.

They're both more than sharp enough.

 

[brianentz]

I would like the zeiss 18mm, but can't justify the extra $

 

[narsuitus]

I once had a 20mm f/3.5 that I loved; but eventually, I replaced it with the wider 18mm f/3.5 and a faster 24mm f/2. For me, the 18mm is ideal for shooting in tight places such as small rooms, the interior of cars, or the exterior of buildings located on crowded and narrow streets.

More recently, I added the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 and was surprised to discover that at the 18mm focal length, it has better image quality than my 18mm prime.

https://flic.kr/p/8Xq7pi

 

[benjiboy]

Look on flickr or some other site to view examples of photographs made with these lenses and then decide 2mm isn't much but still a viewable difference. Personally I would go for the 18mm

2mm isn't much in a standard or telephoto lens but in a wide angle its much more significant.

 

[perkeleellinen]

I've had both of these lenses and they are both really good. I never had any issues with sharpness even with close-ups. They're both big and heavy, the 18mm particularly so. In the end I found the 20/3.5 a nice compact size and even though there is a big difference between 18 and 20 I never found that I longed for an 18 when I had the 20. I've sold them all now and I'm sticking with the 16mm fisheye - I prefer that type of distortion and it gets everything in.

 

[Scott Murphy]

I've read that the 18mm isn't a very good Nikkor. In any case, the one with a big UFO-like sunshade.

You've read about one but have you ever actually shot with one? I have been using one for about 12 years and I can assure you, film or digital (on my D850) it is a very superior lens. Essentially zero distortion and @ f/8 it is sharp from corner to corner. I have used it to do real estate work where the image was enlarged to 36'x54' and it was sharp as a tack. I ask you, who is more credible, someone who has "read" about one or one who is a shooting pro who uses one?

As for Nikkors being so sharp they should be Canons, all I have to say is that I have been shooting Nikon since 1973 and I would not give you a nickel for a whole truckload of Canons and I have shot with rented Canon F-1's to try them out. I was underwhelmed to say the least. My Nikon F2 beat it in every single department, and that includes their glass.

 

[jimjm]

I've never used a Nikkor 18mm fixed lens before, but I have the 18-35 AF zoom, which is a pretty decent lens. The 20/2.8 AIS is my widest manual focus lens, and it's superior to the AF zoom at 20mm.
The 20/2.8 is a surprisingly small lens for it's speed, and I've always been happy with the results.

Nikon F3, 20/2.8 AIS

 

[ic-racer]

I use manual focus 18mm and 21mm in the Rollei/Zeiss/Contax/Yashica system. Both are very hard to focus and the 18mm is very dark in the corners of the viewfinder on all my Rollei SL bodies (4 different viewfinder configurations). So much that I'm looking to reproduce that focal length in an autofocus lens for my Nikon system. I rented the autofocus 14mm Nikkor but it was too wide for me.

 

[Scott Murphy]

I've never used a Nikkor 18mm fixed lens before, but I have the 18-35 AF zoom, which is a pretty decent lens. The 20/2.8 AIS is my widest manual focus lens, and it's superior to the AF zoom at 20mm.
The 20/2.8 is a surprisingly small lens for it's speed, and I've always been happy with the results.

Nikon F3, 20/2.8 AIS
View attachment 236621

I had a 20mm f/2.8 but sold it when I got the 18mm f/3.5. Apart from the 5º degree difference between angle of view and a slight 2/3 stop difference in maximum aperture, you are going to be very hard pressed to see any difference between either lens at f/5.6-f/8. For their focal lengths, they are both outstanding performers. And unlike their modern day counterparts, they are made completely of METAL and not cheesy plastic.

Nikon D850, 18mm f/3.5

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

I own a 20mm f:2,8 and I can only say excellent things about it. It has a floating element and is sharp at all apertures. Contrary to what others have written, it is unbelievably compact and light for such an extreme optic. Lord what a good lens it is!

I think it's clear at this point that it's a head-to-head race, as both 18 and 21 mm owners are very happy with any of these two terrific lenses, so it's really up to you to decide if the small extra angle given by the 18mm is balanced by cost, rarity, size and other sides of the purchase. Anyway, it's a win / win scenario.

 

[Mick Fagan]

The Nikkor f/3.5 is a wonderful lens, it takes a filter (72mm) which is great. I found I mostly needed to stop down to f/8½ or f/11 to virtually eliminate fall off in the corners. It is an extremely good lens for architectural work, both inside and outside for the 35mm format. Can make for very interesting portraits. Is reasonably rectilinear and holds straight lines slightly better than the 20mm you are considering.

That said, both are excellent lenses; I've used both and decided upon the 18mm as the focal length I would use and like the most. I had the 18mm and 20mm lenses on loan for almost 6 months around 28 years ago, so I got to know them quite well. Funnily enough, when I was actively looking for the 18mm Nikkor, I came across a professional photographer selling his Sigma f/2.8 18mm lens; which, on a spur of the moment decision, I purchased. One of my better snap decisions. The Sigma is very good, but not quite as good as the Nikkor. That said, the Sigma has given me excellent service and is a very good second tier alternative.

At one stage of my deliberations, and after purchasing the Sigma 18mm, I had two F3 cameras alongside each other on tripods. The cameras were equipped with the Sigma and Nikkor 18mm lenses. Just looking through the viewfinders you could see a just noticeable contrast difference, if you really looked at the scene; with the Nikkor having slightly more contrast than the Sigma. Using slide film this could be an issue, but as I almost always used colour negative and B&W film and did my own developing and printing, this was a non issue for me.

The Sigma version also has floating elements, the Nikon version is called Close Range Correction (CRC). The Sigma could be a viable and maybe cheaper possibility for you, very importantly, the Sigma focuses the same way as Nikkor lenses do, so you can switch seamlessly with their lenses.

A friend has the Nikkor f/3.5 15mm rectilinear, that is as close to perfection for extreme wide angle coupled with almost no distortion in 35mm land as you can get. It is one of the few lenses I would consider if I was using 35mm for everything. I now use 4x5" film for stuff like that, so generally, I no longer need very wide angled lenses on 35mm. But it would be really good to have one on the pointy end of your camera when walking around and capturing the world around you.

Mick.

 

[narsuitus]

As I stated in my 2014 post, I exchanged my 20mm f/3.5 for 18mm f/3.5 and 24mm f/2 wide angles.

I have since added a 14mm f/2.8.


Nikon Wide-Angles by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Scott Murphy]

I have had both and only have the 18mm f/3.5 now. Ghosting is a little better controlled with the 20mm and the 20mm may have a slight edge in the corners but unless you are printing to 16x20 or larger you probably would not see a difference. One advantage the 20mm has is it has CRC and the 18mm does not

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm trying to decide which lens to next add to my collection of MF nikkor prime lenses. It's between the Nikkor 18mm 3.5 AIs and the 20mm 2.8 AIs. Just wondering if anyone has any input to help me decide.

can't elp much; just loving my Nikkor20mm f/2.8; can't believe 2mm are going to makethat much difference.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Mm just a small point to start, the 18mm Nikkor f/3.5 does have CRC, and has the same close focus distance as the 20mm f/2.8, all with CRC.

I have a good photo buddy who has always been enamored with the 18mm, I've shot some with it as well as the AF 18mm f/2.8. His opinion is less of the 20mm f/2.8. My own wides include the 20mm in f/2.8, the f/3.5 (52mm) as well as the 20mm f/4 Ai and of course the 20-35mm AF. The f/4 deserves it's film era reputation, but I long used the f/3.5 as the go-to wide, I appreciate the very strong backlight performance (no filter but hood). I purchased the 2.8 Ai-S version as an upgrade but the higher levels of flare turned me off a bit, and that lens somewhat languishes needing a CLA.

As for the OP question, if I was 'building a collection" (bold and in Italics) and between the 20mm f/2.8 Ai-S I would get the 18mm f/3.5. It was made for a relatively long time but in fairly low quantity. But for a 'collection' the OP should consider the 15mm f/3.5 or 5.6 Q.C (with thorium elements).

 

[Scott Murphy]

I've read that the 18mm isn't a very good Nikkor. In any case, the one with a big UFO-like sunshade.

Where did you read this, Rockwell? He has zero credibility with serious and professional photographers (like me). I have had one for 20 years and I beg to differ, it is a fantastic lens. It is small, lightweight and like all older Nikkors, built like a tank and has the unmatched Nikon "feel".
There is essentially no distortion and two stops down it is as sharp as any ultra wide angle Nikkor you will find.

 

[NB23]

I like Ken Rockwell. Always on point and solid infos