Your favorite wide prime in Nikon mount?

[Paul Jenkin]

When I had my F2S, I had a 20mm UD 20mm which was a great lens but, for the most part, I found it a bit too wide and used my 24mm f2.8 more. I had a 35mm f1.4 AiS as well and that used to be my favourite.

My current favourite if a 35mm f2 (AF) that I use on my F5.

 

[removed-user-1]

My next Nikkor will be the 28/3.5 AI, most definitely. I like compact and don't need the speed. Over 20 years I've used the 17-35/2.8 AF, 20/3.5 UD, 24/2.8 AF and AI, Tamron 28/2.8, 28/3.5 H, 35/2.8 AI and 35/2.0 AF, but I keep going back to 28mm.

 

[mdarnton]

OK, you folks are a bad, bad influence. I posted my post, then hopped over to the bay and put my money where my mouth was. Anyone want a now-redundant 28/2 Kiron?

 

[vpwphoto]

28 f 2.8

 

[fotch]

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

To much wide is like having to much telephoto, and you need to shoot where your standing (or). If you have a choice, you choose what works best for the shot. However, unless there is a compelling reason to shoot with a particular lens, I use what is on the camera most of the time. That may be why 50 is considered normal, it works more often than not.

 

[Pumalite]

There is a very good use for the 20mm; and that have to find it yourself.

 

[djacobox372]

I really enjoy my 16mm 2.8 fisheye--covers the whole frame, not just a stupid circle like the wider fisheyes.

 

[fotch]

I really enjoy my 16mm 2.8 fisheye--covers the whole frame, not just a stupid circle like the wider fisheyes.

I too like my 16mm, however, the Nikon 7.5mm f/5.6 Fish Eye is my favorite. Made me laugh, made me money.

 

[perkeleellinen]

When I was in my 20s I inter-railed around Europe and took only one lens, the 16/2.8 fisheye.

 

[stavrosk]

I am really looking forward to the 24mm f1.4 Samyang Lens that should be available in February.

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

So am I. Its size is somewhat of a damper for my excitement, but I can always use it with F100 and leave 24/2 for F3HP. That is, if I manage to convince myself that I need another fast 24, which won't be a simple task.

By the way, how do you know it will start selling in February? I haven't heard anything which, to be honest with myself, doesn't mean much.

 

[LJSLATER]

My favorite wide (that I own) is my 18mm f/4 AI. It's not exactly rare, but it is hard to find. Even so, it's extremely affordable and optically sufficient. Barrel distortion can be noticable (depending on subject matter and focus distance), and it takes giant series IX or 86mm filters. Also, the screw-in front cap and the screw-in hood can't both be attached at the same time! I don't mind the slow aperture; I can usually get acceptably sharp images hand-held at 1/8 at this focal length. I have to admit I like using it because it's a beautiful lens that you don't see very often, but I really do like the pictures I take with it.

My first wide was the 24mm f/2.8 AI, and it is optically superior in every way compared to the 18, but it mostly served to help me realize I wanted something even wider.

 

[OldBodyOldSoul]

My absolute non-favorite wide, which I use too often is the Rokinon 14/2.8. Every time I mount it on F100 and look through VF I go whaaaaa?! and then run to my mommy crying (well, sorta).
I haven't made a single good picture with it, I just don't know how. I'll keep trying though, freak accidents happen every day.

 

[dynachrome]

My 35/2.8 'K' and 35/2 O are both very sharp. The 35/2.8 PC doesn't get used as much but is also very sharp. I find the 28/3.5 AI very sharp and have two of them. The non-Nikkor wide angles I like include a 24/2.5 Soligor, 28/2.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount, 35/1.9 Vivitar Fixed Mount and if I need something wider I can use a 21/3.8 Vivitar T4, which is surprisingly sharp.

 

[mikebarger]

I'm also a 18mm F4 Nikkor guy. Great lens and my first choice for wide angle. If I only carry two; it's the 18mm an a 105mm.

Mike

 

[benveniste]

In the 17-24mm range, the only Nikon prime I own is a non-D 20mm f/2.8. I'd rate it in the "very good" range, but no higher. "Mr. Squeaky," my 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S, has less distortion, the distortion is more easily correctable, is no worse for flare, and might be a tad sharper.

I owned a 24mm f/2.8 AI-S but traded it away. I won't say anything bad about it, but I never really warmed to it either. I find that with 35mm film, I prefer to use a wide-angle zoom and use different focal lengths and shooting distances to record different perspectives on the same subject.

 

[clayne]

At the risk of plugging my own stuff, 35mm is normal and 50mm is short-telephoto to me. Even if scientifically it's closest to "normal," 1:1, etc. I feel that due to the way the eye's natural framing includes peripheral vision, to an extent, 35mm feels more normal to my eyes...



Nikkor 35mm f/2.0, 1600PR, direct contact sheet scan (ilford)



Nikkor 28mm f/2.0, 100ss, direct contact sheet scan (ilford)



Nikkor 20mm f/2.8, 100ss, print scan (emaks)


I'm of the opinion that a wide-angle shot looks less "wiiiiidddeee angle" if one gets in there, putting the lens almost inside of the shot. There is a depth that reveals itself when using wide angles this way. Sometimes they can be useful for the whole effect of taking it all in and conveying width, but most of the time ultra-wides really shine when you're close.

I like 'em all but gravitate to sub-35mm widths.

 

[MFstooges]

I have a beat up 24 f2.8, it squeaks when focusing but I love the pictures it takes. I tried 35mm f2.8 AIS and the result is awesome. I wish they make 35mm f2.0 in manual focus

 

[clayne]

I have a beat up 24 f2.8, it squeaks when focusing but I love the pictures it takes. I tried 35mm f2.8 AIS and the result is awesome. I wish they make 35mm f2.0 in manual focus

They do!

 

[Clay2]

I like to photograph tall trees, Spruce and Cedars in the Summer and loaded with winter snow.
I use portrait view with a 28mm f3.5 PC- Nikkor preset lens on F2AS.
Indoor flash :17 , 24, 35 mm wide angles.
Best regards,
/Clay

 

[declark]

Have owned a couple 24mm f2.8 N-C Ai lenses and loved both of them. Had a beater 28mm f2.8 Ais that was incredibly sharp at close distances, almost macro-esque, but pretty average at longer distances... 28 never felt very wide, whereas 24 just starts to have that sort of distorted feel when you get in tight. Never felt like spending for any wider than 24 and I just don't understand the need for faster than f2.8, but haven't tried so I guess I don't know what I am missing other than a heavier camera bag which would probably be offset by a lighter wallet. Had a 35mm f2 Ais and never dug it that much it's a boring focal length to me.

 

[John Austin]

2.1cm Nikkor for Nikon F - This is a jewel of a tool and did the bulk of my Karri Forest protest documentation - It also works superbly for IR work, but with end of HIR that is a thing of the past

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

2.1cm Nikkor for Nikon F - This is a jewel of a tool and did the bulk of my Karri Forest protest documentation - It also works superbly for IR work, but with end of HIR that is a thing of the past

There are other, arguably very good, IR films still being made...

 

[Soeren]

My favorite is the ZF 25mm f/2,8. Mechanically and optically superb and with the ability to focus super close (17cm). I also have the Nikon AFD 20mm f/2,8 but since the arival of the 25mm I rarely use it.
Best regards

 

[John Austin]

At the risk of plugging my own stuff, 35mm is normal and 50mm is short-telephoto to me. Even if scientifically it's closest to "normal," 1:1, etc. I feel that due to the way the eye's natural framing includes peripheral vision, to an extent, 35mm feels more normal to my eyes...

Regarding what is "standard" for 35mm we all base 50mm on the original FL for the Leica - The real figure is in the region of 43mm, so 35mm is very close - The logic is that "normal" is the diagonal of the film frame - For 35mm it is the square root of (242 + 362) - The schoolboy Pythagoras thingie I was taught at school - I once worked it out at sort of 43mm