|
|
mauriceramirez
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jul 16, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2854
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very compact, very fast AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft with more distant objects wide open.
|
|
I love this lens. Not quite as sharp as a 17-35, and a couple notches down from the 14-24, but still a lens that results in better pictures simply because of its size and weight.
|
|
 Jul 13, 2009
|
|
eolake
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Sep 24, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp if stopped down. Compact.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bad corners at large apertures.
|
|
I apologize for my first review of this lens, I don't know what I was on. Cough medicine maybe.
Actually both my copies are fine if stopped down two stops. But if not, the corners are just smeared badly. And this is even on a reduced-frame camera (D200), so it's not acceptable to me. I think an F:2.8 lens should be good at F:2.8.
(I would lower my rating, except the site does not seem to allow to change it, sorry.)
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2008
|
|
digiman69
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Aug 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharper (at least my copy) than majority of zooms at 20mm f2.8, better at f4 (on FF), light, cheap on used market.
|
|
Cons:
|
Construction could be better, not all copies are fine at borders wide open.
|
|
For those still loving primes (light weight, compact size, sharpness)
|
|
|
Aug 7, 2008
|
|
mdarnton
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Mar 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, sharp, sharp. Very flare resistant.
|
|
Cons:
|
Larger than it needs to be, in my opinion.
|
|
Coming from Leica and Olympus film cameras, I'm used to 21mm lenses that are quite a bit smaller than this one. It's only small in comparison with modern bloated zooms, which I won't carry around at all. Nevertheless, it's the sharpest W/A I've ever had, especially at f4. There must be some variation in these lenses--I was a bit scared to buy it, based on these reviews, but mine is excellent. It doesn't like stopping down too far, which is common with the W/As I've had, but to make up for it, I can't get it to flare under any conditions. Even against the light, shadow detail is strong and contrasty.
My favorite lengths are 21 and 28mm, and now I have a 20 on film, and a 30 on DSLR. That's really not a bad deal, all things considered.
Too bad about all the plastic (I particularly don't like the printed rather than engraved markings and the plastic window), but I guess it's proven itself over time.
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2008
|
|
panos.v
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 15, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3657
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light, sharp, fast, nice contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
None really!
|
|
An excellent little lens. I used it for discreet wide-angle shooting with my D70s. This is a fantastic lens, small, light, sharp and f/2.8. Contrast is lacking a bit at f/2.8 and there is a bit of vignetting and lower sharpness around the corners but it all goes away by f/3.5. In any case, I find it excellent for real-world shooting, especially in dimly lit internal areas. It also makes a great outdoors lens for street/travel shooting.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2006
|
|
rootrider
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Jul 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap compared to the 18mm 2.8, 'wide enough' on digital though not nearly as fun as with film, good wide open, very compact, AF-D version focuses quickly, very little flare
|
|
Cons:
|
softness or diffraction starting at around f/5 - f/7 on my lens, not as wide as I'd like on digital, there are better primes out there. Almost unnoticeable vignetting wide open in very bright conditions even on a digital body.
|
|
First off, I'm quite sure that I don't have the best example of this lens here. When I first got it I did a lot of shooting wide open and was loving the results. But when I started stopping the lens down a bit (like f/5.6) I saw some really bad diffraction or softness, especially where there's bright light.
Other than the above issue I love the lens. It's fast, small, relatively cheap, pretty wide, and has a nice warm color rendition that I kind of like compared to my 18-70 and 70-210. The lens hood can get in the way of an onboard flash and gives you less room to work with the focusing ring, but you really don't need to use the hood except when shooting in the worst light. I've yet to see any lens flare when using this lens with the hood.
I have however seen a slight hint of vignetting when shooting wide open in very bright conditions, even on my digital body. This wasn't something I was expecting to see... but it's barely there and likely not a problem for most any digital shooter who wants to use this lens.
My understanding is that the 24 or 28mm 2.8 lenses are better overall lenses than this 20mm 2.8, but if you're looking for a wide prime that's cheap and relatively sharp then this is the lens for you. The Nikon primes double or triple in price once you get to 18mm and wider, and 24mm and narrower is too close to the fov of a 35mm lens on a film body. This is the sweet spot in value for wide Nikon primes.
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2006
|
|
williamkazak
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jun 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4645
|
|
Review Date: Jun 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Fairly compact even with a shade.Inexpensive compared to the 18mm.
|
|
Cons:
|
Flare outdoors in backlit situations and dj lights at a wedding reception.
|
|
This is a nice wide angle for film and compact.A great digital lens for an indoor high speed shooters kit in combination with the the Nikon 35mm F2 and the 50mm F1.4.
I trust this lens over any zoom I have used.
|
|
|
Jun 8, 2006
|
|
eolake
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, compact.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not much.
|
|
First, to Tiesge: The sharpness of the lens is not affected by the ISO setting. It is just the camera introduces noise.
I have two of this lens. One of them is not sharp. I bought it used, but it looks new, so this was disappointing. So I "bit the green apple" as we say in Denmark, and bought another, this one from new. And from early testing, this one is indeed very sharp.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2006
|
|
Pavel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 4762
|
|
Review Date: Jan 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $360.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
very small and pretty sharp both near and far. good minimum focus distance.
|
|
Cons:
|
not as sharp as some of the zooms like the 17-55 wide open.
|
|
pretty good performer and marvelously small. I like the 30mm effective focal lenght of the lens on digital. There are no image problems that I see - but on the other hand it doesn't stand out as a fantastic lens neither. Glad I got it.
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2006
|
|
markgoldberg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Dec 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great optics, fun to use, produces shots of great impact
|
|
Cons:
|
Vignetting from filter
|
|
I had this lens in my film era and it was a favorite. For travelling light, I took a medium zoom plus this one, and I could do a wide range of things. The wide and plus 2.8 fstop made it great for existing light interiors. It was dynamite with a polarizer and made for some great church interior shots, too.
I speak past tense because in digital, it became a 30mm equivalent and I needed something wider. It was replaced by a 12-24dx as my working wide angle. For travelling light, I now take an 18-70 plus a 10.5DX fisheye for interiors.
I should have gotten a thin filter. With a regular filter, you will get some corner vignetting and small f-stops.
This is a great choice for 35mm photography, but it doesn't fit in my digital picture and I am sure it has a great home with its new owner.
|
|
|
Dec 6, 2005
|
|
mskad
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 20, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 115
|
|
Review Date: Mar 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $375.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, light.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit soft, even stopped down (D70 and D100)
|
|
The lens is really small, great build quality and relatively fast (f/2.8). But I was a bit surprised to see that the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX AF-S zoom is sharper at all f/stop, with better contrast and color. On the other hand, the 20mm f/2.8 exhibits less CA.
Used with D70 and D100.
|
|
|
Mar 14, 2005
|
|
robinng
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 47
|
|
Review Date: Jan 14, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
SHARP, LIGHT WEIGHT & FAST FOCUS
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
IS A VERY GOOD LENSE FOR DSLR,
I USED IT TO SHOOT WEDDING, INTERIOR.
ALL TURN OUT VERY GOOD RESULT!
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2004
|
|
|
