Nikkor 20mm or 24mm f/2.8 lens....... Any users out there?

kundalini · Oct 21, 2008

After this last camping/hiking trip I have had in-depth discussions with myself about which lens(es) to carry next time. I'm not a young buck anymore and the weight and $$$ of my pro zoom glass is more than I want to haul on the trail. So I was said to myself "just take the primes dummy". I already have the 35/50/85/300mm primes, but was thinking a wide angle sure would be nice.

As far as I can see, that leaves me with the choices of 20mm f/2.8 (94° Angle of View) or the 24mm f/2.8 (84° Angle of View). The reviews are promising so far. Has anyone had practical experience with either of these lenses? Will the 10° Angle of View difference be significant in landscape shots or even if in walkaround mode in the city?

Thanks for your help.

Mike_E · Oct 21, 2008

Walk around with a zoom covering that range and test for yourself. The only real answer that will please you. The only other consideration is the distortion from each lens granting equal contrast and color rendition.

Sounds like a good idea though, an f/2.8 zoom does get heavy! lol

Helen B · Oct 21, 2008

I have the old 20 mm f/4 and the 24 mm f/2.8, both manual focus. I like them both, but in the hills I tend to carry the 20 mm in preference to the 24. It has a look of its own, and gives more of a feeling of being in the vastness of it all.

Best,
Helen

kundalini · Oct 21, 2008

Thanks Mike, but I have a feeling that it's comparing oranges to tangerines with my zooms in those focal lengths to the primes.

Thanks Helen. Do you find that the 20mm is a practical focal length or more of a specialized length?

djacobox372 · Oct 21, 2008

4mm may not sound like much, but at the wide end it's a lot. Go for the 20mm if you can afford it.

kundalini · Oct 21, 2008

Thanks. The cost is not an issue.

jstuedle · Oct 21, 2008

I have always felt the Nikkor 24's were the weak point in an otherwise great Nikon lineup of primes. The 20 is a lot sharper IMO and as Helen stated, has a great look. I also think the 28 is sharper than the 24, so I tend to avoid the 24. JMHO.

kundalini · Oct 21, 2008

Thanks John. Good to see you posting again every now and then.

Yep, after some more reading, the 20mm is looking better for my wants.

Anyone else have an opinion?

jstuedle · Oct 21, 2008

Thanks, sorry I got out of the habit of posting. Been sort of busy, but I know that is not an excuse.

Mike_E · Oct 21, 2008

I wasn't suggesting you compare image quality- or didn't mean to any way, just get a feeling for whether or not the options would be wide enough.

If price is no object then the 20mm would be my choice as well.

Just as an aside, have you priced some of the old Zeiss Ikon Nettars? The older 6x6 (XXX/16)are dirt cheap and will fit in a shirt pocket. Not bad for medium format. :thumbup:

mohawk51 · Apr 19, 2012

Once you use a 20mm, trying, for me at least, going back to a 24, or a 28 or a 35 as wide angle usage just doesn't cut it. If I'm going to use a wide angle, it's the 20 for sure.

Patrice · Apr 19, 2012

Kundalini,

You are going to love using the older 2.8 wide primes with your d700's bright viewfinder. These little lenses are really not bad, very small and very light.

I often leave the fast zooms home and go with Ai f/2.8 28, 50 and 135. A 20mm sounds tempting as well.

STM · Apr 19, 2012

I have both 20mm and 24mm f/2.8 AIS Nikkors and love them. The 20mm has a little bit of barrel distortion but is not noticeable unless you are doing something like architecture with lots of straight lines. It is slightly more prone to ghosts than the 24mm but it also has more glass up front. Both are superb lenses however. The 28mm f/2.8 AIS is Nikon's sharpest wide angle, hands down though. I use it more than the other two. As fer any of them thar new fangled au-to-matic ones, I couldn't tell ya!