Nikon wide angle question

[Mike Lopez]

Hasselblad has a 30mm lens and it is a FishEye. Think out side 35mm.

So does Bronica. But who cares? This thread is about Nikon wide angles, not Hasselblad.

 

[Mike Lopez]

This is the second time Sanders has suggested this lens, not knowing anything about it I decided to look it up in my Nikon Compendium.

The very first 20mm was the Nikkor-UD 20mm, f/3.5 consisting of 11 elements and easily distinguished by its large 72mm filter thread. At the time it appeared in 1967 it was Nikon's most extreme wide-angle lens and also the first retrofocus design of this focal length.

Source: Compendium Handbook of the Nikon System, Rudolf Hillebrand, Hans-Joachim Hauschild. Page 129.

That book is an outstanding reference.

 

[lxdude]

Hasselblad has a 30mm lens and it is a FishEye. Think out side 35mm.

Yeah, but you said Nikon 30mm... so don't Hassel me!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah, but you said Nikon 30mm... so don't Hassel me!

It was a typo I corrected the next day. Get off your high horse.

 

[lxdude]

It was a typo I corrected the next day. Get off your high horse.

My horse ain't high! A little tipsy, yes...

 

[Sirius Glass]

A fall from a horse, even a pony, will hurt.

 

[MattKing]

Reign it in folks!

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I did see the 20mm Nikkor-UD but I also read that there is much more distortion compared to the AIS ones, so I do not really know what to think.

FWIW I do not see much distortion in the lens. Neither did Ken Rockwell in his review of the lens:

Nikon 20mm f/3.5 UD

Newer 20mm Nikkors are smaller and lighter, and Ken says all the 20mm Nikkors produce similar results. I went with the older UD because I liked the ability to focus down to a foot, and I liked the bigger size for my current use.

Tools impose their own limits. If you want to shoot a 35mm film camera on the street, you should accept that it is not the right tool for shooting the kinds of architectural images you suggest. Rather than fight with the camera to try to make it do things it cannot do, walk around for an afternoon and look through the viewfinder and shoot the things that interest you, and open your eyes all of the things that the camera can do well.

 

[Kowloon]

I'll go for a 20mm. Easier for me.

I usually check that website on top of Ken Rockwell. Which lead me to think that the 3.5 AIS 20mm would be a better choice.

 

[Craig]

Can you rent a lens to try? I'm assuming there must be camera shops in Hong Kong that rent lenses, then you can see what suits your needs before committing to buy something that may or may not be right for you.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I usually check that website on top of Ken Rockwell. Which lead me to think that the 3.5 AIS 20mm would be a better choice.

FWIW, Richard Haw (the website you reference) is reviewing a badly-damaged specimen of the lens, with fungus and loss of lens coatings. Even so, his conclusions are hardly dismissive: "The rendering of this lens [Nikkor-UD] looks exquisite, it’s the only 20mm Nikkor that does this," and: "I highly recommend this lens for people who want a classic 20mm Nikkor, it has a unique, vintage-looking rendering that most lenses don’t have today." The kinds of distortion he describes are endemic to all wide-angle lenses. If you don't want any distortion at the edges, you need a longer lens.

I chose the Nikkor-UD because of its signature -- because I wanted the look of an older lens -- not in spite of it. I prefer the smaller form of the modern 20mm Nikkors, but I hoped to get with the Nikkor-UD a certain ineffable something that a modern lens would lack. Because I can't describe the something, a part of me discounts it. But like Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it, and the Nikkor-UD has it.

This could be the beginning of a long discussion that would test the patience of this group. Is the lens signature a good thing or a bad thing in your mind? If a bad thing, then why do you want to shoot 35mm film with a 1960s Nikon? If your aim is clarity and neutrality, you would be much better off shooting a digital camera, or even an iPhone. Presumably, you are choosing to shoot a 35mm film camera because it has a certain signature, which is another way of saying a certain departure from perfection. Picking a neutral modern lens works against that goal.

I'm not saying the UD is the right lens for you. I'm just trying to tease out the reasons behind your choices, and suggest ways you might better achieve your goals.

 

[Sirius Glass]

FWIW, Richard Haw (the website you reference) is reviewing a badly-damaged specimen of the lens, with fungus and loss of lens coatings. Even so, his conclusions are hardly dismissive: "The rendering of this lens [Nikkor-UD] looks exquisite, it’s the only 20mm Nikkor that does this," and: "I highly recommend this lens for people who want a classic 20mm Nikkor, it has a unique, vintage-looking rendering that most lenses don’t have today." The kinds of distortion he describes are endemic to all wide-angle lenses. If you don't want any distortion at the edges, you need a longer lens.

OR change the aiming of the lens OR change the position of the lens OR your position.

I chose the Nikkor-UD because of its signature -- because I wanted the look of an older lens -- not in spite of it. I prefer the smaller form of the modern 20mm Nikkors, but I hoped to get with the Nikkor-UD a certain ineffable something that a modern lens would lack. Because I can't describe the something, a part of me discounts it. But like Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it, and the Nikkor-UD has it.

This could be the beginning of a long discussion that would test the patience of this group. Is the lens signature a good thing or a bad thing in your mind? If a bad thing, then why do you want to shoot 35mm film with a 1960s Nikon? If your aim is clarity and neutrality, you would be much better off shooting a digital camera, or even an iPhone. Presumably, you are choosing to shoot a 35mm film camera because it has a certain signature, which is another way of saying a certain departure from perfection. Picking a neutral modern lens works against that goal.

I'm not saying the UD is the right lens for you. I'm just trying to tease out the reasons behind your choices, and suggest ways you might better achieve your goals.

 

[Kowloon]

Can you rent a lens to try? I'm assuming there must be camera shops in Hong Kong that rent lenses, then you can see what suits your needs before committing to buy something that may or may not be right for you.

Too much of a hassle in Hong Kong. Locals are not used to it usually refuse.

FWIW, Richard Haw (the website you reference) is reviewing a badly-damaged specimen of the lens, with fungus and loss of lens coatings. Even so, his conclusions are hardly dismissive: "The rendering of this lens [Nikkor-UD] looks exquisite, it’s the only 20mm Nikkor that does this," and: "I highly recommend this lens for people who want a classic 20mm Nikkor, it has a unique, vintage-looking rendering that most lenses don’t have today." The kinds of distortion he describes are endemic to all wide-angle lenses. If you don't want any distortion at the edges, you need a longer lens.

I chose the Nikkor-UD because of its signature -- because I wanted the look of an older lens -- not in spite of it. I prefer the smaller form of the modern 20mm Nikkors, but I hoped to get with the Nikkor-UD a certain ineffable something that a modern lens would lack. Because I can't describe the something, a part of me discounts it. But like Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it, and the Nikkor-UD has it.

This could be the beginning of a long discussion that would test the patience of this group. Is the lens signature a good thing or a bad thing in your mind? If a bad thing, then why do you want to shoot 35mm film with a 1960s Nikon? If your aim is clarity and neutrality, you would be much better off shooting a digital camera, or even an iPhone. Presumably, you are choosing to shoot a 35mm film camera because it has a certain signature, which is another way of saying a certain departure from perfection. Picking a neutral modern lens works against that goal.

Yes indeed, I know that the coating has been damaged but I don't mind not having a vintage look rather that carrying a bulky lens. And I do note as well that he wrote:

"I don’t shoot landscape photos lately so I don’t see myself using this one regularly but to be frank with you, I would use the Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 Ai-S instead for this if I wanted a manual lens for the job. It’s more compact and sharpness is more even across the frame."

and

"While this lens is handy for architectural photography due to its wide angle- of-view, the amount of geometric distortion can be a problem. You can use a software to fix this or just do it the right way and choose a lens that doesn’t have a high distortion profile to begin with."

My goal is not trying to ask my camera to do something impossible, it is just to have fun with it and learn. To me there is no bad things or good things about owning a signature lens, I don't care that much using a 20mm whether it is AIS or not as long as the result is what I can expect.

Digital is not for me at this moment and since I now know what I can expect from my gears, I'm happy with that.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

OR change the aiming of the lens OR change the position of the lens OR your position.

To belabor the obvious, I said: “If you don't want any distortion at the edges, you need a longer lens.” Lens optics do not change according to aim or placement. All 20mm lenses distort at the edges. As you try to suggest, you can work around (or exploit) the distortion with various framing strategies. But they will not make the peripheral distortions any less — that is an inherent characteristic of the lens.

 

[Sirius Glass]

To belabor the obvious, I said: “If you don't want any distortion at the edges, you need a longer lens.” Lens optics do not change according to aim or placement. All 20mm lenses distort at the edges. As you try to suggest, you can work around (or exploit) the distortion with various framing strategies. But they will not make the peripheral distortions any less — that is an inherent characteristic of the lens.

The distortion is some times tolerated and other times exploited.

 

[Craig]

Too much of a hassle in Hong Kong. Locals are not used to it usually refuse.

Here you go: https://www.onestop.hk/index.php/le...ikkor-20mm-f-2-8-d-super-wide-angle-lens.html

It will work on your camera.

Looks like nearly the entire range of current Nikon lenses is available to rent.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

The distortion is some times tolerated and other times exploited.

One of my favorite photographers in NYC is Gary Breckheimer -- he shoots nudes in the city using a 15mm lens, and works with the distortion to elongate his subjects' legs and limbs. You can see his work on his NSFW website:

Pavement

Gary Breckheimer

www.garybreckheimer.com

Warning: I am in a couple of the images on that page, albeit safely clad in business attire, along with a very pregnant Melanie.

 

[lxdude]

A fall from a horse, even a pony, will hurt.

And more likely if he's tipsy...

 

[Helge]

Just buy a 20mm 3.5 and try it. It’s a super sharp lens and you have less opportunity of including parts of yourself or random “noise” you notice too late than with an 18mm.

I’d question the whole premise though.
I mainly use wides as kind of macro/closeup lenses, to get more background included in closeups.

Getting all of a building facade in the frame is beguiling as a concept, but it’s exceedingly rare that it actually results in a great photo.
You need a “subject” and you need to pay attention to the whole frame. That can be very very difficult.
At non closeup distances the subject will often be too small and seem too incidental. And it’s super difficult to avoid visual noise in the photo.

I’d use a normal lens (40 to 60mm) and photograph building details. And then use the 28 to take shots at an angle down the street.

Then there is the effect that we are told not to call distortion. Maybe wide angle perspective? That can look cheap and gimmicky unless the viewer can sense that you have a really good reason to use that kind of enhanced perspective.
There was good reason why HCB called it screaming with images.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There are big differences with 1mm difference when in the focal length range of 20mm and less. Each has its own personality. I believe that one needs to look through the mounted lens to understand each lens. Using remote control, [READ: internet], to choose is suboptimal best.

 

[Kowloon]

Here you go: https://www.onestop.hk/index.php/le...ikkor-20mm-f-2-8-d-super-wide-angle-lens.html

It will work on your camera.

Looks like nearly the entire range of current Nikon lenses is available to rent.

Thank you! I didn't even know such thing exists.

I'll look into it this weekend and see how it goes with a roll.

Getting all of a building facade in the frame is beguiling as a concept, but it’s exceedingly rare that it actually results in a great photo.
You need a “subject” and you need to pay attention to the whole frame. That can be very very difficult.
At non closeup distances the subject will often be too small and seem too incidental. And it’s super difficult to avoid visual noise in the photo.

That's most likely the result that I will end up with but only a wide lens could do the job in my case. Let's see how it goes.

 

[benveniste]

As it hasn't been suggested, may I humbly throw out the option of the 17-35/F2.8 AFS lens, if you're not limiting yourself to primes? It may indeed have a bit more distortion than some of the primes--you will want to read reviews carefully--but it has a reputation as being a very fine lens nevertheless. I have one, and I will vouch for it overall, although I generally *don't* use mine for architecture so I can't offer an opinion there.

The reason why many 17-35mm f/2.8's are available inexpensively is that it uses a problematic first generation Nikon autofocus motor. The problems being with a squeak and eventually the motor simply fails. I've had two fail on me. The first took 5 years, the second took about 10 years. To repair it the second time cost me $550.

Since the OP plans to use the lens on a Nikon F, that may not matter. In each case manual focus operation was not impacted. But I'm not sure it's possible to attach "rabbit ears" to this model, and if not, they'll have to use it with stop-down metering. And compared to a purpose-built manual focus lens, the AF feel is sloppy.

I own both a Nikon 20mm f/2.8 AF and a Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 ZF.2 as well as they 17-35mm. I find that the 20mm pairs better with a 28mm, but that's a matter of style.

 

[rulnacco]

But I'm not sure it's possible to attach "rabbit ears" to this model

It is. The aperture ring is made of plastic, and if you look closely, you'll see the two faint dimples I mentioned that show where to insert the screws to attach them. At one time, Nikon actually tried to make sure that their lenses were, as much as possible, backwards compatible. (Which is one reason I've always stuck with Nikon.)

I agree with you that the focusing action isn't nearly as nice as an AIS lens, or many of Nikon's autofocus primes. (I have a 180mm/2.8 AF, and a 300/F4 AF--both have very nice, wide, well-placed and reasonably damped focusing rings that make them easily usable on MF bodies.) But particularly if you're shooting at the wide end of the 17-35's range, it's not like you'll be throwing it all over the place anyway.

There have been plenty of great options mentioned by others in this thread. I'll reiterate that the 17-35/F2.8 AF-S *might* be a reasonable choice if the OP (or anyone) wants something that combines (1) being very wide, (2) sharpness and especially speed, up to "professional" standards, (3) the versatility of a zoom, (4) solid construction (assuming you're not worried about the autofocus motor eventually failing--yes, I do know that pain), (5) reasonable size and balance, and at least decent manual focus usability on an MF body, (6) the ability to meter with early Nikon metered bodies with just the most basic of modification, (7) extremely reasonable prices (these were bread-and-butter lenses for pro photographers; just make sure to get one that hasn't been battered to death*) and (8) being an actual Nikkor lens.

*I knew a guy who worked for a couple of decades plus for a few of the London dailies. Once he told me that on the day of his retirement, he took his pair of F4s--one of my very favourite cameras of all time--and his lenses (including a 17-35) and just chucked them in the nearest skip. When he noticed my aghast reaction, he said, "Mate, you wouldn't have wanted any of that stuff. I used to *literally* run to cover stories with both cameras around my neck, everything banging together, did that for years, and they were basically rubbish by the time I was ready to hand in my press pass." My own 17-35 shows battle scars from having previously been owned by a member of the media, but the glass was in good shape when I bought it (all I worry about, really, don't give a toss what it looks like outside), and it has been a real warhorse for me, too. Film and digital, AF and MF.