Nikon AF-S 20mm f/1.8G ED /w Nano

Golf007sd

Wanted to start a topic regarding this new lens. So lets have it....

I find this to be an attractive lens for those that are seeking a wide-angle prime lens for landscape, architecture photography. In fact, for those that do a lot of night shooting, specially video, this lens is right up you ally.

As for pricing, for a wide-angle prime lens this is very well priced.

Nikon lens spec's

WestEndBoy

I would like to see an IQ comparison between this lens and the 20mm in my thread. Of particular interest is how much they have improved the odd distortion of my version (which will also exist in the auto-focus version). I avoid flat horizons with this lens because of that. However, otherwise I would not notice it. If they have not fixed the distortion, this lens will not be suitable for architecture unless a firmware update can tackle it - perhaps, but it is quite wavy. I use my 14-24 for architecture.

It is certainly a good focal length. I find when shooting landscapes that I never need wider but there are times a longer focal length would be inadequate.

WestEndBoy

I do have that. Perhaps I have not figured it out.

NSXTypeR

Well I guess the DX users got their wide angle prime, just wish it wasn't 5x I was willing to pay.

Msmoto

Looking at the MTF curves, a place to start at least, this new 20mm looks to be possibly sharper then the 24mm f/1.4, both wide open. As it goes toward the edges the differences diminish. In any case, at the price, this looks like a winner for Nikon. The extra 10° coverage over the 24mm would be very nice in many situations.

As to distortion, I suspect almost all the very wide lenses have their own version, and correction in post processing is to be expected. LR 5.6 works well for this. It is my routine to correct or adjust verticals with almost every image, distortion is done at the same time.

So, another for my B & H Wish list….LOL

WestEndBoy

Looking at the MTF curves, a place to start at least, this new 20mm looks to be possibly sharper then the 24mm f/1.4, both wide open. As it goes toward the edges the differences diminish. In any case, at the price, this looks like a winner for Nikon. The extra 10° coverage over the 24mm would be very nice in many situations.

As to distortion, I suspect almost all the very wide lenses have their own version, and correction in post processing is to be expected. LR 5.6 works well for this. It is my routine to correct or adjust verticals with almost every image, distortion is done at the same time.

So, another for my B & H Wish list….LOL

The distortion on the older 20s is a wavy complicated distortion, not simple barrel or pincusion. Fixing the simple stuff is easy enough. I gave up trying on my 20. However, I suspect Nikon has improved on this.

SquamishPhoto

I was already considering selling my 14-24mm and this is making it much easier to replace it with.

Msmoto

@WestEndBoy

Maybe that is why I got rid of my 20mm f/2.8….

Vipmediastar_JZ

@squamishphoto I too tought about replacing mine for a 14mm prime as I tend shoot at 14mm 99% of the time. Then again 24mm comes in handy in a flash when the scene changes and there is a person involved.

proudgeek

So here's a math question for you all. I do a bit of astrophotography when I can get to areas with low light pollution. For these purposes I use a 17-35 wide open (f/2.8). Based on the mathematical formulas we've all talked about here on other threads, this gives me a max shutter speed of about 28 seconds or so before I start to see movement in the stars (and even at that shutter speed I begin to see movement at the periphery if I pixel peep). So my question is, am I better off shooting at 20mm f/1.8 for a shorter period of time or at 17mm f/2.8 for a slightly longer period of time (assuming of course that ISO remains constant)?

Symphotic

So here's a math question for you all. I do a bit of astrophotography when I can get to areas with low light pollution. For these purposes I use a 17-35 wide open (f/2.8). Based on the mathematical formulas we've all talked about here on other threads, this gives me a max shutter speed of about 28 seconds or so before I start to see movement in the stars (and even at that shutter speed I begin to see movement at the periphery if I pixel peep). So my question is, am I better off shooting at 20mm f/1.8 for a shorter period of time or at 17mm f/2.8 for a slightly longer period of time (assuming of course that ISO remains constant)?

The short answer is the 20 f/1.8 is better. Without doing the math:
You want to keep the maximum time an maximum aperture, and adjust your ISO to permit the acquisition of objects with the lowest apparent magnitude (highest m value) before light pollution or detector noise causes a problem.
Sorry I didn't do the math, but I think this answers your question because you'll be better off at 20 f/1.8 in any case. Max time before you see star trails is only part of the consideration: light gathering power (max aperture, not f/ stop) is more important, and the aperture of the 17 f/2.8 is about 6 mm, but the 20 f/1.8 is almost twice that. Also, the 20mm is likely to have much better transmission than the zoom.
We haven't seen what the coma looks like on this lens yet...

proudgeek

thank you^^

Golf007sd

For astrophotography this lens will do a far better job, IMHO, than your 17-35. Get it and give us your feedback.

Photography life article also agrees with my point-of-view.

PB_PM

20-24mm range is ideal for astrophotogrphy, from what I've seen, and experienced. Yes there are impressive shots at wider range, but sharpness wide open (1.8-2.8) is key for that kind of work.

If I was going to switch to a prime only kit, this new 20mm F1.8G would be in my bag for sure. 20, 35, 50, 85 makes a great 1.8 kit. I skipped 28mm, because it's too close to 35mm.

Symphotic

In astrophotography we optimize with light gathering power, transmission, resolution, and field of view with our choice of lenses. Actual aperture, not f-stop, is important in gathering as much light as possible. Transmission give the advantage to primes over zooms even at the same f-stop. If you can tolerate a narrower field of view, the 24 f/1.4 is an even better choice. I'd like to try out my Sigma 35 and 50 f/1.4, which are both light buckets, but I don't have dark enough skies around here since BMW put a dealership in our town. They leave the lights on all night, and I can't even see the Milky Way anymore.

Godless

I have been waiting for this lens for ever. A modern 20mm with decent coatings. Yay! and it´s so lightweight & cheap.

Golf007sd

Photobug

I agree, at this price point it's going to find a decent market. Looking forward to seeing more photos and the DxO data.

Kuv

Well I guess the DX users got their wide angle prime, just wish it wasn't 5x I was willing to pay.

Not really. It's only 30mm equivalent on DX. Any kit lens goes wider than that. A 15mm or 16mm 1.8 DX should be twice as easy to make (also twice as cheap). What I don't get is the third party manufacturers skipping this class entirely. We literally have dozens of 18-xxx lenses, but not a single wide crop lens. FF lenses don't count here since they cost way too much and aren't as wide.

SquamishPhoto

^^^ What are you talking about? There are several options from several manufacturers in the 10-20mm DX range, including Nikon.

KnockKnock

I don't think it's hard to imagine Kuv was talking about a fixed focal length lens.

Bokeh_Hunter

This is good to see yet another "old prime" was updated. But again it is huge. PANCAKES!

I want this dangit!


I would be fine with 2.8s.

WestEndBoy

Check out the one in my thread. It also has an af version. If you are using for what I use it for, shooting landscapes at f/5.6 plus, it will be perfect (small and sharp).

I am going to China this morning and I won't see many landscapes. I am bringing the 14-24 for that.

sevencrossing

The video review suggest this is a light lens but is nearly twice the weigh 50mm f1.8

WestEndBoy

Stands to reason, 50 is always the smallest.

Emcee

@Kuv I think you're missing the point. This can be used as a wide angle on a DX, this is one of the few wide angle primes that would work on DX and also autofocus.

Now this is by no means an ultra wide prime for DX.