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

Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
edited September 2014 in Nikon Lenses
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
Post edited by Golf007sd on
D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
«13456

Comments

  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    edited September 2014
    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.
    Post edited by WestEndBoy on
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    I do have that. Perhaps I have not figured it out.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,251Member
    Well I guess the DX users got their wide angle prime, just wish it wasn't 5x I was willing to pay.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    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
    Msmoto, mod
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    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.
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    I was already considering selling my 14-24mm and this is making it much easier to replace it with. :)
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    @WestEndBoy

    Maybe that is why I got rid of my 20mm f/2.8….
    Msmoto, mod
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    @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.

  • proudgeekproudgeek Posts: 1,422Member
    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)?
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 704Member
    edited September 2014
    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...

    Post edited by Symphotic on
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    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.
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    edited September 2014
    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.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • SymphoticSymphotic Posts: 704Member
    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.
    Jack Roberts
    "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what nobody else has thought"--Albert Szent-Gyorgy
  • GodlessGodless Posts: 113Member
    I have been waiting for this lens for ever. A modern 20mm with decent coatings. Yay! and it´s so lightweight & cheap.
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 5,751Member
    I agree, at this price point it's going to find a decent market. Looking forward to seeing more photos and the DxO data.
    D750 & D7100 | 24-70 F2.8 G AF-S ED, 70-200 F2.8 AF VR, TC-14E III, TC-1.7EII, 35 F2 AF D, 50mm F1.8G, 105mm G AF-S VR | Backup & Wife's Gear: D5500 & Sony HX50V | 18-140 AF-S ED VR DX, 55-300 AF-S G VR DX |
    |SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
  • KuvKuv Posts: 55Member
    edited September 2014
    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.
    Post edited by Kuv on
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    ^^^ What are you talking about? There are several options from several manufacturers in the 10-20mm DX range, including Nikon.
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • KnockKnockKnockKnock Posts: 398Member
    I don't think it's hard to imagine Kuv was talking about a fixed focal length lens.
    D7100, D60, 35mm f/1.8 DX, 50mm f/1.4, 18-105mm DX, 18-55mm VR II, Sony RX-100 ii
  • Bokeh_HunterBokeh_Hunter Posts: 234Member
    This is good to see yet another "old prime" was updated. But again it is huge. PANCAKES!

    I want this dangit!
    image

    I would be fine with 2.8s.
    •Formerly TTJ•
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    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.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    The video review suggest this is a light lens but is nearly twice the weigh 50mm f1.8
  • WestEndBoyWestEndBoy Posts: 1,456Member
    edited September 2014
    Stands to reason, 50 is always the smallest.
    Post edited by WestEndBoy on
  • EmceeEmcee Posts: 48Member
    @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.
    D800 | 14-24 2.8G, 28 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 58 1.4G, 85 1.4D, 24-85G VR
Sign In or Register to comment.