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

sevencrossing

Nice garden Seven.

Thank you

sevencrossing

At last a chance to test it properly

A shot where I do need the corners sharp
A big improvement on my old AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR

spraynpray

Did you enable distortion correction in Lightroom @sevencrossing?

I often forget and have to go back...

sevencrossing

Yes I did but unlike the 16 -35 very little changed

spraynpray

I just thought the balloon top left and the reflection bottom right looked a bit stretched so I thought you may not have. Those slight distortions aren't a worry for my nightscapes though.

sevencrossing

I think there will always be distortion with an ultra wide angle but the edges on my 16 -35 were always soft
I think this would be acceptable to most people ( I have already 2 requests for two A1 prints

spraynpray

I just joined the 20 club and ordered mine. It will be here tomorrow - can't wait!

sevencrossing

I just joined the 20 club and ordered mine. It will be here tomorrow - can't wait!

Like 99% of people who bought the AF-S NIKKOR 80–400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR
You will not be disappointed

Gaptoothedgypsy

Me too sevencrossing

Ironheart

Welcome aboard the good ship 20mm f/1.8G. It is a nice place to be :-)

Snowleopard

I got the chance to check one of these out because I want to replace my 20mm F/2.8 AF-D. this thing is light, it almost feels like a toy and not a real lens., Image quality was ok trying it in the camera shop. Really contrasty.

sevencrossing

....and not a real lens ????????

Really contrasty ????????

Could define what is a "real" lens

and what you mean by "contrasty"

kenadams

Seven, your second image with the one balloon - that is a corner crop, right?

Snowleopard

....and not a real lens ????????

Really contrasty ????????

Could define what is a "real" lens

and what you mean by "contrasty"

I guess "real" lens is a relative term. It felt like the one I got to try out at my local camera shop felt like a cheap child's toy and did not have the build quality I would expect from Nikon.

The Nano Coatings are suppose to produce images with more contrast, but it seemed like the particular 20mm 1.8 that I tried had more contrast than I expected compared to the other nano coated lenses I have.

kenadams

The 1.8s are positioned more like high grade consumer products I guess. Still, with this being a landscape lens, I don't feel like it should weigh a ton when I carry it through the mountains.

One review stated something along the lines of, a lightweight lens is more prone to blur when handholding, but I'd argue you have the problem right there, handholding while you should have your camera on a sturdy tripod. I'd also argue it's not the job of the lens to counter balance a camera's excessive mirror slap.

sevencrossing

I don't feel like it should weigh a ton when I carry it through the mountains.

+1

Nikon are aware some photographers like a heavy lens and are bringing out some big, thick, heavy, Platinum lens hoods.

For people who find the nanocoatings too contrasty. Dealers will smear their lens with vaseline
(This service must be done after full payment has been received)

spraynpray

First impressions of my 20:

I don't appear to have as good a copy as @Ironheart for coma. I would say it is better than the 24 1.4 Bower that I had, but not wildly so. I suppose it is quite a bit better than the 24/1.4 when you consider it is a wider FoV, but still not great. I will not bother posting a night shot as we have too much moon to get anything other than a few stars to evaluate the coma.

I have shot a few daytime, sunset and night shots with it and so far, I would pronounce it as 'OK but not great'. Actually I am disappointed overall, I would appreciate opinions on the sharpness. Here is one of my test shots:



Not outstanding IMHO. What do you guys think?

spraynpray

OK, I just took several identical images with the 20 on my D750 and my 17-55 on my D7100 and the 17-55 beats it for sharpness and contrast. I think it is going back. I will test one more and if it isn't better, I will get something else although I don't know what because I don't want to go longer as 20 is a touch tight for nightscapes. I have to stop the 20 down to 2.8 to lose coma completely BTW.

sevencrossing

I think it is going back.

I think you said this about your 24 -120
you do not seem to having much luck with full frame lenses

spraynpray

I think it is going back.

I think you said this about your 24 -120
you do not seem to having much luck with full frame lenses

I simply speak as I find, unencumbered by feelings of loyalty to marque, model or format. I call a spade a spade. For sure I am impressed by my D750, D7100, 70-200f4, 60 micro and the Tokina 11-16 (regrettably sold).

I am about to send my D750 and 24-120 back for service and updates, I'll get my disappointment with the 24-120 checked out then, but yes, I am not impressed by my recent FX lens purchases.

pictureted

I find the sharpness, speed and small size extremely useful. I also use the 16-35/VR, but for smaller and faster, the 20 is very useful.

Ironheart

@spraynpray, did you set the AF fine tune? Did you focus manually at night? How about live view AF?

spraynpray

@pictureted: I would be the same if it didn't disappoint as above. I sold my 16-85 for being less sharp than my old 18-105 kit lens.

@Ironheart: I always focus manually at night, it is the only way really. Live view AF is slow and clunky on NIkons I find, so I always zoom in 100% and manually focus in live view when it is dark. As for fine tune, no. I would only do that if I see the focus is sharp but not in the right place and TBH the 20 has such massive DoF that I don't think it is necessary.

sevencrossing

As usual I could be wrong I think a 20mm has a massive depth of Field but a small depth of focus
I think fine tuning is about depth of focus

pictureted

@pictureted: I would be the same if it didn't disappoint as above. I sold my 16-85 for being less sharp than my old 18-105 kit lens..

Not the 16-85, the 16-35.

But regarding the 16-85 vs the 18-105 (I have both), when I shot DX (D90, D7000, D7100) I thought the 16-85 much superior optically, with better construction quality and a more useful range. Since I usually carry the 70-200/4, I don't need the longer end of the 18-105 and like the 16 wide end. The 16-85 is weakest at 85, but still useful, that's why I carry the 70-200/4.