rafaelcasd wrote:
Need to take the time to do quality photos of the lenses, like George. For now i will use what I have.
Ran a quick test of the 20mm I own: 20mm 3.5 UD, 20mm 4 ai, 20mm 2.8 ais, 20mm2.8 AF.
The 3.5 and 4 are very similar in performance, except if the sunlight hits the glass directly, where the UD flares beautifully and the 4 not much at all. The curvature of field of these two tends to keep the nearer floor in focus with the center at a distance.
The AF is good, flatter field but the best of the lot is the ais, noticeably.The prettiest is the UD.
I am just fooling around, nothing scientific here. Ken Rockwell has a very detailed comparison of the 20mm.
Here are a couple of shots, from the 3.5 UD and the 2.8 ais. There are more at 100% on Flickr if you have time to waste.
On these two samples you can see how the UD and the 2.8 extend sharpness to the ground up close into the corners, but the far sides and corners on the UD are poor, on the 2.8 decent. processing is standard profile and all settings copy paste.
TEST Nikkor 20mm 3.5 UD D810 f8 01 _01 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
I have been tempted by the 20mm 2.8, I thought both AiS and AF were supposed to be the same optlcally, but you find the AiS better, would this be samplee variation? Or is there a design difference?
Your question made me question myself and I took some more shots today. The lenses are supposed to be the same optically and they are really so close to each other that it is my casual testing technique that creates the difference. My errors are consistent, which is interesting to me.
Very small differences in focusing all of these 20mm lenses make a significant difference to the corners and edges. If you get focusing right the images at f/8 are more than satisfactory for landscapes to me. For mechanical reasons it is harder to accurately focus the AF than any of the manual lenses.
With the extra care today I was getting better results with the AF, but no better that what I was getting yesterday with the AIS.
I cannot differentiate it anymore, they perform the same as much as I can tell. Still like the manual focus better, but that is personal preference.
Here are the best photo from the AIS and from the AF at 2.8. Lots more on Flickr for those with idle time.
rafaelcasd wrote:
Need to take the time to do quality photos of the lenses, like George. For now i will use what I have.
Ran a quick test of the 20mm I own: 20mm 3.5 UD, 20mm 4 ai, 20mm 2.8 ais, 20mm2.8 AF.
The 3.5 and 4 are very similar in performance, except if the sunlight hits the glass directly, where the UD flares beautifully and the 4 not much at all. The curvature of field of these two tends to keep the nearer floor in focus with the center at a distance.
The AF is good, flatter field but the best of the lot is the ais, noticeably.The prettiest is the UD.
I am just fooling around, nothing scientific here. Ken Rockwell has a very detailed comparison of the 20mm.
Here are a couple of shots, from the 3.5 UD and the 2.8 ais. There are more at 100% on Flickr if you have time to waste.
On these two samples you can see how the UD and the 2.8 extend sharpness to the ground up close into the corners, but the far sides and corners on the UD are poor, on the 2.8 decent. processing is standard profile and all settings copy paste.
TEST Nikkor 20mm 3.5 UD D810 f8 01 _01 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
I have been tempted by the 20mm 2.8, I thought both AiS and AF were supposed to be the same optlcally, but you find the AiS better, would this be samplee variation? Or is there a design difference?
Your question made me question myself and I took some more shots today. The lenses are supposed to be the same optically and they are really so close to each other that it is my casual testing technique that creates the difference. My errors are consistent, which is interesting to me.
Very small differences in focusing all of these 20mm lenses make a significant difference to the corners and edges. If you get focusing right the images at f/8 are more than satisfactory for landscapes to me. For mechanical reasons it is harder to accurately focus the AF than any of the manual lenses.
With the extra care today I was getting better results with the AF, but no better that what I was getting yesterday with the AIS.
I cannot differentiate it anymore, they perform the same as much as I can tell. Still like the manual focus better, but that is personal preference.
Here are the best photo from the AIS and from the AF at 2.8. Lots more on Flickr for those with idle time.
rafaelcasd wrote:
Need to take the time to do quality photos of the lenses, like George. For now i will use what I have.
Ran a quick test of the 20mm I own: 20mm 3.5 UD, 20mm 4 ai, 20mm 2.8 ais, 20mm2.8 AF.
The 3.5 and 4 are very similar in performance, except if the sunlight hits the glass directly, where the UD flares beautifully and the 4 not much at all. The curvature of field of these two tends to keep the nearer floor in focus with the center at a distance.
The AF is good, flatter field but the best of the lot is the ais, noticeably.The prettiest is the UD.
I am just fooling around, nothing scientific here. Ken Rockwell has a very detailed comparison of the 20mm.
Here are a couple of shots, from the 3.5 UD and the 2.8 ais. There are more at 100% on Flickr if you have time to waste.
On these two samples you can see how the UD and the 2.8 extend sharpness to the ground up close into the corners, but the far sides and corners on the UD are poor, on the 2.8 decent. processing is standard profile and all settings copy paste.
TEST Nikkor 20mm 3.5 UD D810 f8 01 _01 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
I have been tempted by the 20mm 2.8, I thought both AiS and AF were supposed to be the same optlcally, but you find the AiS better, would this be samplee variation? Or is there a design difference?
Your question made me question myself and I took some more shots today. The lenses are supposed to be the same optically and they are really so close to each other that it is my casual testing technique that creates the difference. My errors are consistent, which is interesting to me.
Very small differences in focusing all of these 20mm lenses make a significant difference to the corners and edges. If you get focusing right the images at f/8 are more than satisfactory for landscapes to me. For mechanical reasons it is harder to accurately focus the AF than any of the manual lenses.
With the extra care today I was getting better results with the AF, but no better that what I was getting yesterday with the AIS.
I cannot differentiate it anymore, they perform the same as much as I can tell. Still like the manual focus better, but that is personal preference.
Here are the best photo from the AIS and from the AF. Lots more on Flickr for those with idle time.
