What's the consensus on Nikkor AF-D wideangle primes (20,24,28,35mm)?

[albireo]

Hi everyone

Recently got back into 35mm photography with a wonderful Nikon F801s body I scored for peanuts.

I started in photography in the early 90's with a F601m body and a bunch of Nikkor primes. I stupidly sold most of the primes in the transition to digital. I am left with a Nikkor AF-D 50mm f/1.8 which is a great little performer on the F801s. I also still have (luckily) a Voigtlaender 40mm f/2 pancake which is an absolutely marvellous lens, and a Nikkor AF-D 85mm f/1.8, still working flawlessly after all these years.

I'm now looking into expanding again my lens collection towards the wider end, and am interested in relatively fast, light and small primes with a diaphragm ring. The natural choice would be one of the Nikkor AF-D.

I'm thinking specifically about one of the 20/24/28 f/2.8 AF-D triad. What's the current consensus on them?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi everyone

Recently got back into 35mm photography with a wonderful Nikon F801s body I scored for peanuts.

I started in photography in the early 90's with a F601m body and a bunch of Nikkor primes. I stupidly sold most of the primes in the transition to digital. I am left with a Nikkor AF-D 50mm f/1.8 which is a great little performer on the F801s. I also still have (luckily) a Voigtlaender 40mm f/2 pancake which is an absolutely marvellous lens, and a Nikkor AF-D 85mm f/1.8, still working flawlessly after all these years.

I'm now looking into expanding again my lens collection towards the wider end, and am interested in relatively fast, light and small primes with a diaphragm ring. The natural choice would be one of the Nikkor AF-D.

I'm thinking specifically about one of the 20/24/28 f/2.8 AF-D triad. What's the current consensus on them?

I have the 20 and 35mm and love them;no experience with 28mm.

 

[NB23]

All good.

Come on, no matter how you turn it, Nikon were always the best in the business

 

[Alan9940]

I've never owned one, but I've heard that the AF-Nikkor 35mm f/2D is very nice.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

They're still making them so something must be right about them. I prefer MF glass but when I use AF the majority are AF-D. Buy with confidence you'll get what you seek.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I cover the range with the Nikon 20mm to 35mm AF zoom lens. If it was using primes on the camera I would have a 21mm, 28mm and 50mm for the wide and normal range.

 

[BMbikerider]

The 20/35 AFD is an absolute cracker. Originally priced at well over £1000 but now can be picked up for around £350. As sharp and as well made as you will ever need. With a constant 2.8 aperture is is no lightweight but will be less than the 20, 28, & 35 together. It is probably my favourite lens. The 17/35 is supposed to be better but with the extra cost and weight, ask your self, is it worth it?

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I have a 28-85 f3.5-4.5 AF-D and it's one of my favorite AF lenses. Not particularly fond of variable aperture glass but I forget all about that with this one. Picked it up cheap for the F5 when I first bought it. No regrets.

 

[albireo]

Thank you for your replies so far. I remember that 20-35 f/2.8 zoom well - always wanted to own one.

Those of you owning Ai-S wideangle primes - what's *the* one to have in the 20mm to 35mm range?

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Cannot say which is "The One" but I have a 24mm f2.8 I like. It's chipped for use with electronic cameras.

 

[mshchem]

I've a 20 mm it's a lovely, compact lens. I use it with F5, and D5, D800. I bought the lens for 200 USD used, a steal! I have the 20 to 35 zoom as well, bulky but great lens. I had a 35mm f 2 great lens, sold it. I splurged a couple years ago and bought a 28 1.4 AFD. I use it a lot, phenomenal, very useful, perfect focal length for me. I really like the 20, it's small and plenty fast.
I am always amazed how well the AFD lenses hold up with the high resolution DSLR bodies. I see 85 1.4 AFD lenses selling in nice shape for around 500 USD that's a steal! Backwards compatibility is important to me, nice to be able to get out a old body, still have an aperture ring.

 

[narsuitus]

What's the consensus on Nikkor AF-D wideangle primes (20,24,28,35mm)?

I own and use eight Nikon wide-angle prime lenses. All have an aperture ring.
Only one is an AF-D lens. All the others are manual focus.
All produce excellent image quality.

Here are the wide-angle lenses that I use on my Nikon 35mm film cameras:

14mm f/2.8 AF-D (this is my widest prime and my only auto focus wide-angle prime)

16mm f/2.8 (rectangular fish-eye)

18mm f/3.5 AIS (good lens but image quality of my Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom is better)

24mm f/2 AIS (good lens but image quality of my Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom is better)

28mm f/4 perspective control (used primarily for architectural photos)

28mm f/2.8 AIS (used primarily for landscapes, street shooting, and theatre)

28mm f/3.5 pre-AI (has BR-2 adapter on front of lens so lens can be attached in reverse position on bellows for close-ups and macro; has BR-3 adapter on rear of lens to allow filters or slide copy unit to be attached to reversed lens)

35mm f/1.4 AIS (performs like a wide angle on my film cameras; performs like a normal lens on my APS-c digital cameras)



Nikon Wide-Angle Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Thank for your replies so far. I remember that 20-35 f/2.8 zoom well - always wanted to own one.

Those of you owning Ai-S wideangle primes - what's *the* one to have in the focal range 20mm to 35mm?

no doubt t6he 35mm is more veratile and the one to have;the 20mm is for more specialized applications.

 

[__Brian]

The only complaint I have with the AF-D 20/2.8 is some vignetting at the far corners for distance use. This does not happen with my Nikkor-UD 20/3.5, probably owing to its use of 72mm accessories.

 

[Sirius Glass]

20mm and 21mm are specialized and have a limited usefulness, but I like them.
24mm is less restrictive and fairly useful.
28mm I have found to be quite useful especially when traveling in old cities or for photographing architecture.
35mm I have found too close to the normal lens to be worth owning.

 

[Ste_S]

35mm I have found too close to the normal lens to be worth owning.

It's good for a two lens set up, 35mm & 135mm make a good pair.

 

[drmoss_ca]

Currently I have the 20mm D, a 28/1.4 D, and a 35/1.4G. I have had the 28/2.8 D and 35/2.8 D. I only sold the latter pair because I had acquired the larger aperture lenses. To be honest, I haven't had an AF-D lens I didn't like, and the f2.8 lenses were completely satisfactory. I am smitten with the 28/1.4 though, as it's quite a novelty to me to have that shallow depth of field with a wide lens. I will often take a 28 and the 85 as a two lens travel set, but lately I have also used just the 28-300, which seems like cheating (but that's a subject for another thread!)

 

[Dennis-B]

I own both the 20 and 24 f/2.8 AF-D models, and they're always in my bag with either my film or digital cameras.

The 24mm is my "go to" wide angle. It's about as wide as you can get before you start to get off-axis distortion (it's discernible on the 20mm). I've used both the 28 and 35 versions, and it there's a better w/a lens out there, I'd use one. I always go from my 50mm f/1.4 AF-D to the 24, when I change lenses toward the "wide side". Since my film is now always scanned, I can crop as needed in post processing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Currently I have the 20mm D, a 28/1.4 D, and a 35/1.4G. I have had the 28/2.8 D and 35/2.8 D. I only sold the latter pair because I had acquired the larger aperture lenses. To be honest, I haven't had an AF-D lens I didn't like, and the f2.8 lenses were completely satisfactory. I am smitten with the 28/1.4 though, as it's quite a novelty to me to have that shallow depth of field with a wide lens. I will often take a 28 and the 85 as a two lens travel set, but lately I have also used just the 28-300, which seems like cheating (but that's a subject for another thread!)

For most of my 35mm work I use the 28mm to 300mm Tamron AF Zoom and the 28mm to 200mm Nikon AF Zoom.

 

[GarageBoy]

Skip the non D 28 2.8

The 20/35 AFD is an absolute cracker. Originally priced at well over £1000 but now can be picked up for around £350. As sharp and as well made as you will ever need. With a constant 2.8 aperture is is no lightweight but will be less than the 20, 28, & 35 together. It is probably my favourite lens. The 17/35 is supposed to be better but with the extra cost and weight, ask your self, is it worth it?

The 17-35 also puts you at risk for getting one with a squeaky afs motor...

 

[ic-racer]

I use the AF 35mm/F2D and 28/F1.8G for almost all my 35mm photography.

 

[StepheKoontz]

I know you said you want an aperture ring, but if your camera will function with G glass, the newer 18-35G is a really great lens and very lightweight.

 

[albireo]

I know you said you want an aperture ring, but if your camera will function with G glass, the newer 18-35G is a really great lens and very lightweight.

Thanks, I plan on using these lenses on an old F801S (I believe it was called N8008 in the US) and if I understand correctly G lenses will meter correctly but only work at maximum aperture in Aperture priority mode (which is what I tend to use most of the time).

 

[ron917]

Thanks, I plan on using these lenses on an old F801S (I believe it was called N8008 in the US) and if I understand correctly G lenses will meter correctly but only work at maximum aperture in Aperture priority mode (which is what I tend to use most of the time).

I have a N8008 (F801 in the rest of the world).

G lenses meter and expose correctly in P or S mode.

In M and A, they meter for and expose at minimum aperture (smallest hole) only. The aperture fully open for viewing of course. But when you actuate the shutter it closes down all the way.

 

[benjiboy]

The quality of Nikon prime lenses is such that this is the wrong question, it should be "am I a good enough photographer to appreciate these lenses, and use them to their full abilities".