Nikkor wide angle primes 18 vs 20mm for FX

NRandall

I am curious to know if anyone here has had experience with these two lengths and can offer comparisons with a Nikon FX DSLR.
AF or AIS it does not matter so long as your comments are specific. Thanks!

Golf007sd

What FX body are you plan on using the lens on?

If I may, get yourself the 14-24 2.8 and you will find that it will give any prime a run for its money. I assure you the results will not disappoint you.

Msmoto

Here is the 20mm f/2.8 at ISO 2000 on a D90
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7848264202/sizes/o/in/set-72157631216472282/

And at 1/20 sec wide open on a D4….ISO about 18,000, yes, 18,000….LOL
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7029473223/sizes/o/in/set-72157630044833773/

These suggest the 20mm really works.

framer

Also don't overlook the 17-35 AFS 2.8 great price, great performance. The 20 Ais was a good lens I used for years but after I got the 17-35 it never got used again and was sold.

framer

Msmoto

If one wants a prime, then the 20mm is great. But if one is looking for the best images…either the 16-35mm/4.0 VR, or the 17-35/2.8 might be good. But the 14-24mm/2.8 seems to be the most desirable. The primary consideration might be the cost and in this respect the prime 20mm/2.8 wins.