Nikon 20mm f1.8 or Tamron 15-30mm F2.8?

[N1kon1k]

hey guys been saving up to buy one of these lens and now that I have the money? I'm a bit undecided on which one to buy...

Nikon 20mm F1.8 is $800

Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 is $1100

I will intend to use this lens for landscape and would like to try to shoot the Milky Way and star trails if possible... I know it's asking a little too much of one lens and their might be a compromise but I will probably use 80% of the lens for landscape...

Lens will be paired with my D750

Any suggestions or guidance to which lens is sharper and better lens for the price?

 

[table1349]

Food for thought:
Why you Need a Telephoto Zoom Lens for Landscape Photography
Using Telephoto Lenses for Landscape Photography

 

[N1kon1k]

Food for thought:
Why you Need a Telephoto Zoom Lens for Landscape Photography
Using Telephoto Lenses for Landscape Photography

Not sure what you meant by both articles... i do understand a bit of perspective but I think the word needed in the article should be "perception" .... not to get into too many details but telephoto lenses compress the image leading to a different feel for an image, I also do already have a telephoto lens that I carry in my bag but I don't carry a wide angle lens... this is the reason why I'm asking this question... and also to find out if the extra 6mm will be a huge difference... in either case thank you for those articles... they were informative

 

[JonA_CT]

If you want to look at some photo examples here on TPF...

I believe that @DScience uses the 20mm 1.8 for a lot of astrophotography, and I believe that @jsecordphoto uses the Tamron 15-30 for a bunch of his astrophotography.

If you click on those, they should bring you to their profiles where you can see some of their posts. I haven't seen either of them post here in awhile, but they might pop in to give their 2 cents too, since I tagged them.

 

[table1349]

Food for thought:
Why you Need a Telephoto Zoom Lens for Landscape Photography
Using Telephoto Lenses for Landscape Photography

Not sure what you meant by both articles... i do understand a bit of perspective but I think the word needed in the article should be "perception" .... not to get into too many details but telephoto lenses compress the image leading to a different feel for an image, I also do already have a telephoto lens that I carry in my bag but I don't carry a wide angle lens... this is the reason why I'm asking this question... and also to find out if the extra 6mm will be a huge difference... in either case thank you for those articles... they were informative

Well which one do you think you will use more. With one you have a fixed focal length. With the other you have various focal lengths including the fixed you are looking at.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED mounted on Nikon D800E : Tests and Reviews | DxOMark

Tamron SP 15-30mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (Model A012) Nikon mounted on Nikon D800E : Tests and Reviews | DxOMark

 

[jsecordphoto]

That Nikon 20 is a great lens but the 15-30 is better for Astro. The 20 has fairly bad coma even when stopped down a bit.

 

[N1kon1k]

That Nikon 20 is a great lens but the 15-30 is better for Astro. The 20 has fairly bad coma even when stopped down a bit.

The great thing about the 20 is that I can use filters and a polarizer on it... the 15-30 it won't be possible because of the aspherical element right?

 

[JonA_CT]

That Nikon 20 is a great lens but the 15-30 is better for Astro. The 20 has fairly bad coma even when stopped down a bit.

The great thing about the 20 is that I can use filters and a polarizer on it... the 15-30 it won't be possible because of the aspherical element right?

You can...you just need a Lee system or something similar.

 

[Derrel]

YES, 15mm is at least "three lenses wider" than a 20mm prime. In the old days, we had 20mm, 18mm, 17mm, 16mm lenses,and then in modern days, the 14mm rectilinear. A 20mm and a 17mm are VERY,VERY different wide-angle lengths. The difference between 20mm and 15mm is quite large. At the short end of the focal length range, even one millimeter is a significant difference.

Among third-party makers there have been primne lenses of 28mm,24mm (10 degrees diagonal difference there),the occasional 25mm, 21mm, 20mm, ,18mm,17mm,16mm,15mm.In the mid-1960's a 21mm was THE widest Nikkor lens. In the mid-1980's when I was in my 20's, a 17mm was considered a SUPER-wide lens. In the late 1990's, a 12mm Voigtlander was a super-wide lens.

Anyway, you will have a much wider-angle with a 15mm than with a 20mm. A 15-30mm zoom...wow, a 2x ratio ultra-wide to wide-angle zoom, that would be a super-nice length to have, and since the 20mm has bad coma, it is gonna SUCK for astrophotography.

 

[N1kon1k]

Thanks a bunch Derrel.... only reason why I'm considering the 20mm it's because I just recently invested on the lee filters (100x100) and if I go with the 15-30 I won't be able to use any filters plus polarizer etc... (well not without having to invest in brand new 150x150 filter holder)

Since I only plan on trying to play around with milky way shots even though I know the 20 doesn't have coma correction...

Can't I stitch shots to get the feel of a 15mm shot?

 

[Derrel]

Well, I would say that coma is just about the worst possible optical aberration for star photography...if you want stars that look like footballs, or horse ears, that's what coma creates, so you'd be stitching multiple, bad images together.

When it comes to astro work, I take @jsecord and his opinions very seriously. He mentions that the 20mm has coma even well stopped-down...and coma is just impossible to correct for. It is an absolute deal-breaker for stars, which need to be rendered as points of light, not misshapen blobs. Coma is not a big deal in daylight or normal indoor shooting, but when the subjects are tiny points of light against a dark field, it is absolutely unacceptable.

Polarizing filters generall do not work all that well with wide-angle lenses, and often create a picture with one side weirdly-polarized, and part of the frame looking acceptable; using a polarizer on a 20mm shot is not the same as using one on a 50mm angle of view shot, or on a 70-200 shot.

You might want to consider a rubber-band held-on type of filter holder, like the one Lee used to make. It rubber-bands onto the barrel of the lens, and has a slotted, square filter holder on the front.

 

[N1kon1k]

Sorry my mistake... I should of worded my sentence better... what I meant was... I mainly want to use this lens for landscape and was hoping to be able to sort of touch on the subject of milky way shots (to see if it would be of interest) ...

However you just mentioned that polarizers do not tend to work well with wide angle lens which that I didn't know at all... mainly because I don't own a wide angle lens... that's very important to know...

So In essence like you and @ Jsecordphoto said the 15-30 although more expensive is a better choice for both for landscape and Milky Way shots...

But on the other hand if I was to give up on the idea of using the 20 for Astro work? 20 would be a good contender for landscape as well just not as wide correct? ( which I can get around by stitching shots to get that wide angle that will be missed by the 15-30)

 

[Derrel]

The 15-30 has more range, more versatility than the 20mm prime. According to the DxO Mark tests, sharpness is close: this is a very good zoom lens. It has MUCH more range, and is a 15,16,17,18,20,21,24,25,28 and a 30mm lens. Every one of those lens lengths is or has been a wide-angle prime lens from one company or another. The 20 is just a 20mm lens. Yes, it costs more, but its far less money than a 20,24,and 28mm trio of primes. And it weighs far less than three, or four wide-angle prime lenses.

Nikon has a slower f/4 16-35mm lens that many people like for landscape work. And a variable-maximum aperture "new" 18-35mm lens. Not sure what the budget limits feel like to you, but refurbished or used lenses might make one lens or another more attractive. It's difficult to explain, but wide-angle lens angles of view change a lot with even a mm or two difference, which is why the 15-30mm is such a good value, even at $1,100 new, and why an $800 20mm prime is not a good "value".

 

[N1kon1k]

Good point ... thanks for taking the time to clear things up for me... I really appreciate it... I'm definitely going tomorrow to check it out and also going to read up on the F4 16-35 in the meantime But that 15-30 looks like it's taking the cake

 

[table1349]

Thanks a bunch Derrel.... only reason why I'm considering the 20mm it's because I just recently invested on the lee filters (100x100) and if I go with the 15-30 I won't be able to use any filters plus polarizer etc... (well not without having to invest in brand new 150x150 filter holder)

Since I only plan on trying to play around with milky way shots even though I know the 20 doesn't have coma correction...

Can't I stitch shots to get the feel of a 15mm shot?

LEE Filters 4x4" Circular Polarizer Glass Filter PLC-G B&H

The problem with a polarizer on ultra wide lenses is the uneven polarization due to the extreme angle of view. It is more pronounced on a FF . You can also experience vingenetting.