Your favorite wide prime in Nikon mount?

[EASmithV]

Well... I'm almost there! I got a 50mm f1.4 Ai'd, a 105mm f2.5 ai'd, and now all i need is something in the 17-24mm range.

It doesn't have to be Nikon brand so long as it's a good lens. Ideally it'll have a 52mm filter ring. I was thinking about a 20mm AIS, but i've seen people with 17mm Vivitar lenses, so I was wondering if there's anything to recommend those.

Then, all I'd need is an F4s to keep my F6 and my F company and... The gas never ends!

I do need a wide prime though.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I run a 105, 50 and 24 as a light all encompassing carry around kit.

I have 18mm and 24mm Sigma lenses, I find I use the 24 much more often, although if in really tight places the 18 is very good.

The Sigma 2.8 24 Super-Wide II runs a 52mm filter ring, so that fits in perfectly with your Nikkor lenses. The Sigma lenses also focus the same way as Nikkor lenses, another bonus.

The 18mm doesn’t have a screw filter, although mine has had a 72mm filter ring thread attached by the previous owner, who was/is a professional photographer.

My first suggestion would be to give serious thought to a 24mm as it is small and very handy.

The 20mm Nikkor I had for a while, whilst very useful, wasn’t quite there compared to the 18mm and is seriously different to a 24mm. So I opted for a 24 then I go to 18.

Mick.

 

[fotch]

I would usually take my Nikon 24mm unless I knew I needed the 28, 35, or 20. I probably use the 24 and the 20 most often. I stick with Nikon so the filters, etc., are interchangeable.

 

[PhotoJim]

Can I tempt you with a zoom?

AF-S 17-35/2.8D ED. Beautiful manual-focus feel for older cameras, fast, silent autofocus for newer ones. And wow, what optical quality.

If you don't already own a 24, you should buy a 24. It's far more useful than a 20 or a 17. Using it will also help you learn if you want a 17 or a 20.

If I were using primes exclusively I'd have a 35, 28, 24 and 20. A 17 would be a nice luxury but I could do 95% of what I need with those four lenses.

Still, I like the zoom because it's so convenient for walking around.

Full disclosure: I have prime 24 and 28 Nikkors because sometimes, traveling light is better.

 

[Danielle]

I'd be tempted to suggest a 24mm is quite useful. I'd like to get the 17-35 zoom, but Im also tempted to just use primes for they are simply smaller. The older 20-35mm is a little cheaper than the new 17-35, unless you need wide than 20mm which I actually normally don't.

In recent history I've found myself finding those kinds of focal lengths just about the only ones I need. The 24 probably in-particular for it has less distortion than a 20mm.

 

[eSPhotos]

It's been said many times here that Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AIS is a stunning lens. One of the best wides.
It also has 52mm filter thread.

 

[F/1.4]

Easy

Nikon 24mm f/1.4G. My experience has been absolutely brilliant on my F100.

 

[narsuitus]

My favorite wide-angle prime is the 35mm f/1.4.

My widest wide-angle prime is the 18mm f/3.5.

However, when I carry my 50mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/2.5, I like to carry a Nikon 28mm f/2.8.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11336821@N00/5221608879/

 

[eurekaiv]

I've been trying to figure this out myself. I have a 28mm AI and a 24mm 2.8 N (AI converted) and I really want something wider. Most of the places I want to use the 24 I wish I could go further. The 17mm Tokina seems nice but is difficult to find and the 18mm Nikon is a bit too expensive for me. Been keeping my eye out for a Vivi or Soligor or something inexpensive like that. If I end up loving the focal length I can always step up to the nikkor later.

 

[BradS]

I have a 28mm f/2.8 AIS and love it. I might prefer the 24mm but, I don't have one. I use the 28/2.8 AIS more than all the other lenses in my Nikon kit combined. In fact, I sometimes wonder why I even bother to keep the others...

 

[Colin Corneau]

"It doesn't have to be Nikon brand so long as it's a good lens. "

That's a contradiction. The only off-brand I would tolerate is a Zeiss...please, no holy wars here but you simply won't beat Nikkor glass (other than Zeiss) with any off-brand. And the prices have come down in the used market enough that it makes no sense from a money perspective to not get Nikon, either.

My experience matches most here, 24mm is about as wide as I've found useful - any thing more I find I crop in order to get what I originally envisioned.
That said, I'd think about the 28mm f/2 -- wide, fast and sharp. The 2.8 version is sharp also but why not live a little.

 

[tony lockerbie]

The 28mm F2 Nikkor is one of the best 28's ever made in my opinion, heard excellent reports on the 24 as well. I have the 20mm 3.5 that I also use a lot, great lens and very compact....takes 52mm filters as well. Probably though, with the lenses that you have, a 24 would make sense.

 

[perkeleellinen]

My most used lens is the 24/2.8, I use it as my normal focal length. I also like the 20/3.5 because it's small and takes 52mm filters.

 

[clayne]

The 28mm F2 Nikkor is one of the best 28's ever made in my opinion, heard excellent reports on the 24 as well. I have the 20mm 3.5 that I also use a lot, great lens and very compact....takes 52mm filters as well. Probably though, with the lenses that you have, a 24 would make sense.

The first rule of Nikkor 28/2.0 club is that there is no 28/2.0 club.

The same rule goes for 20/2.8 club.

Colin, all wide angles require getting closer and closer. Until you're literally in the scene (but not on the film). Cropping or the need for it is a symptom of not being close or immersed enough.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well... I'm almost there! I got a 50mm f1.4 Ai'd, a 105mm f2.5 ai'd, and now all i need is something in the 17-24mm range.

It doesn't have to be Nikon brand so long as it's a good lens. Ideally it'll have a 52mm filter ring. I was thinking about a 20mm AIS, but i've seen people with 17mm Vivitar lenses, so I was wondering if there's anything to recommend those.

Then, all I'd need is an F4s to keep my F6 and my F company and... The gas never ends!

I do need a wide prime though.

35mmf/2 or 34mmf2.8

 

[rudolf]

If you care about size, I'd recommend Voigtlander 20mm/F3.5 (very small, makes your nikon compact).

I use it, and I like it.
Take a look for instance at Ken Rockwell's review here (sorry I couldn't get any other review quickly).

 

[BradleyK]

I could debate all day and still not be settled: my personal favorite wide angle Nikkor (manual focus, of course) is a tossup between the 24mm F2 AIS and the 35mm F1.4 AIS. For really wide, I like the older 20mm F3.5 AIS (52mm filter diameter) - sharp and compact. Although I also own the 18mm F3.5, I find myself carrying the 20 because it (with the HK-6) take up so little room in the old Domke...

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

All Nikon wides are excellent, but some are more excellent than others. Which, depends on your preferences and style.

In the 17-24 range, probably the best all around lens is the 20/2.8. If you want to go smaller and lighter but stay at 20, then f/3.5 AI-S and f/4 might be better (they don't have CRC though, if you intend to shoot close to MFD). If you want cheaper, go with the 24/2.8.
For me, 24/2 does exactly what I want at this FL, not more and not less. I shoot low light candids with it so its questionable out-of-center sharpness is of no significance to me.

Outside 17-24? For low light it's the 28/2, which also does landscapes really, really well. You've gotta check out its "boke" as it's not everyone's cup of tea. 28/2.8 AI-S has very little, if any, distortion, and is remarkably sharp up close. Its MFD is smaller than that of the 28/2 and the lens itself is smaller. I've had both but later sold the f/2 and kept the f/2.8 AI-S, because of its size, MFD and sharpness close to it, color and OOF rendering.

My "normal" lens is the 35/1.4 AI-S. It's not cheap and many people don't like the way it draws between f/1.4 and f/2, but if you are not one of them then you won't find anything like it without going big and heavy.

I've heard people saying that Tokina 17/3.5 is a great lens and I've seen pictures made with it, but I have never used it so can't comment.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

My ideal combinaton is 35mm + short tele + 20 (or 21mm).

That said, if you're not adding anything else wider than your 50mm, I'd go for the quite nice 24mm 2.8 (or even 28mm).
The jump from 50mm to 20mm or less would be too much.

I also have and like the Vivitar/Tokina 17mm (and find it far better than the Tamron 17mm many reccomend), but for the reasons above, I certainly wouldn't get it as my only wide...

 

[Dr.Pain-MD]

My Nikon kit is a 50/2 (non-Nikkor), 28/2.8 AI and 20/4 AI. Both the 28/2.8 and the 20/4 are wonderful lenses and the 20 is very wide indeed. While I wouldn't mind owning the 18 over the 20, I don't think I need to go that wide 99% of the time and it's great that I can share my 52mm diameter filters between my three lenses as they all have the same-sized thread. I'm pretty sure that you'll have trouble finding a bad wideangle Nikkor, so no worries on the quality.

 

[EASmithV]

I'm surprised more people are siding on the 24mm rather than the 20mm

 

[Pumalite]

Me too. I have:

Zomm 18-35 ED
20 mm f/2.8
24mm f/2.8
28mm f/2
28mm f/2.8

I find myself using most the 20, 28 f/2.8 and sometimes the Zoom

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

I think it's normal that more people prefer 24mm to 20mm. The former is still only a wide, though a very wide wide, which you can use for standard compositions with relative ease. Mount a 20 and suddenly you need a map and a compass to navigate through all that vast space.
It's like 105mm and 300mm at the long end.

 

[Stan160]

When faced with this decision, I bought a Tamron 19-35mm AF zoom. Slower, bulkier, and I guess inferior image quality to the primes (but not bad), but it meant I could play around until I decided which wide focal length suited me best. From memory it cost less than £50 inc. shipping from KEH to the UK. I could probably have sold it for a similar amount in the UK, but in the end kept it and bought a Nikkor 24/2.8 as well.
Ian

 

[mdarnton]

I am happiest with the usability and construction of my 20/2.8 AF-D, which works very well as a manual focus lens and is extremely sharp with a good IQ, but my favorite focal length is 28mm. Unfortunately, the current 28 AF-D is not a great lens in any respect, not physical, and not optical. If they made a 28/2 AF-D I'd jump on it in a second, but it looks like they're into G lenses, which, having lots of old cameras, I'm not at all.

So I guess it depends on what you want in terms of compatibility. Sooner or later, I'm getting a 28/2 AI lens, and calling the problem solved, for me.

I have a 24, but just can't get into it at all as a focal length. Same for 35mm, the not-really-wide, nor anything else either, lens.