nikon wide angle prime lenses... which is best?

[rootrider]

I'll be looking to get either a 24, 28, or 35mm Nikon lens within a few months. I know I'm going to get tired of only having the 18-70 and 70-210 sooner or later. The 50mm 1.8 is on my list of lenses to get.. but I'm really itching to get a lens that I don't need to stand so far back just to frame shots on a small sensor dslr.

Note, I'm only referring to Nikon AF lenses..
So.. Nikon has a 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, and 35mm f/2. All except the 20mm can be had for around $200 - $300 used (or new in some cases) on keh.com. I'm wondering if anyone here has experience with any of these lenses... hopefully someone has been able to compare more than one of these lenses. Is there any difference in quality? ie. is the 35mm a lot better than the 24mm or the 28mm? I don't have a major preference on focal length between those three so quality is the primary concern here. Are there any differences (ie. glass, focus motor/speed, etc.) between the non-D and D versions of either of these lenses?

How about any Sigma or Tamron options in this range (24mm - 35mm primes with a 2.8 or larger aperture)?

Any opinions, information, or links are appreciated. I know almost nothing about these lenses right now so anything you can tell me is a good thing.

Thanks!

Should be getting my first lens on Monday.. and my first slr (d70) on Tuesday or Wednesday. I can't wait!!

[Blinky]

I've used the 24mm f2.8 and the 24mm f2... on film bodies they were my very favorite W/A lenses... great glass. On a D1x the 24mm becomes a very utilitarion 35mm equivelent... it's a good, useful focal length but just doesn't have that full-bodied, ever so slightly divergent angle of view a 24mm equivelent does.

You have to decide for yourself, it's hard to go wrong with any Nikon glass.

Chip

[Nikonfreak]

Well, You say you want a lens where you won't have to stand so far back to frame a shot, presumably a wide shot...lots of people or something, but all of the primes you mentioned are within the same focal ranges you have, but have faster aperatures.

Wouldn't you be better served with one of the superwide zooms? Say one of the 12-24 or perhaps even the Sigma 10-20?

Julio

[rootrider]

what I'm looking for is a fast, good quality lens that's at least 35mm or wider without creating much distortion and doesn't cost me too much money. I'm not looking for something that looks and acts like a super wide angle lens on a digital body. I'm just wanting something that will appear to be slightly wide and be available at an affordable price (ideally not too much more than $300). Once you get into the teens (15mm, etc.) the price and lens distortion climb pretty rapidly.

After reading some user reviews I'm thinking I'll probably go with the Nikon 35mm f/2 for a normal look and then possibly the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 for a slightly wide look. I'm really liking the affect of a 20mm on a cropped body, but it is still obviously a wide angle lens so I'd want something that looks a little more normal for 'regular' shots (thus, the 35mm).

So... long story short, I'm just looking for a cheap fast wide angle option. I'll definitely be getting the 12-24 or a similar lens when I can afford one but I rarely need to go that wide and the price of those lenses is a little more prohibitive.
Make sense? I'm being rather wordy

[cyclohexane]

I've been pretty happy with the results of using a 20mm f/2.8 AIS on my D2H (gives 30mm equivalent); if I was getting an AF prime, I'd probably get the 20mm f/2.8 D. Hell, I use the 20mm as my standard lens on my FM2, so... my style's a bit different sometimes, LOL

[rootrider]

thanks..
I'm really liking the look of a 20mm lens used on a dslr. Now I guess it's just a matter of finding the right lens. It's hard to tell, but it kind of sounds like the Nikon 20, 24, and 28mm AF-D lenses aren't all that great... some not even as good as the 18-70?? I dunno.. that's why I'm trying to ask to help supplement these comments I've seen.

[Blinky]

Originally Posted by rootrider

thanks..
I'm really liking the look of a 20mm lens used on a dslr. Now I guess it's just a matter of finding the right lens. It's hard to tell, but it kind of sounds like the Nikon 20, 24, and 28mm AF-D lenses aren't all that great... some not even as good as the 18-70?? I dunno.. that's why I'm trying to ask to help supplement these comments I've seen.

Depends on how you define 'good'. The glass and design of all three of those Nikkor focal lengths is superb and will outperform most any zoom optically... there only possible weakness is that with 24mm & 28mm... the focal lengths were selected for their angle of view with a 24mmx36mm capture format. When you use them with a cropped sensor, that particular criteria goes out the door.

The 24mm is still a useful length at 35mm equivelent... it just doesn't have the breathtaking AoF that it has on a film body. Even an 18mm on a cropped sensor DSLR doesn't have the same AoF as 24mm on a film body.

You have to find what you like though. If you really like the images from a 20mm, and it suits your needs, get the 20mm. I grew up with the traditional National Geographic generation. Times have changed, so have photographic styles. Pick the lens that gives you the results you want. Chances are, it won't be the last lens you ever buy. The more you shoot, the more you will come to favor certain focal lengths.

Chip

[cyclohexane]

Like Blinky said, we need to know how you define "good"...

[rootrider]

I've just read elsewhere that people aren't very satisfied with the quality of the of the 24 and 28mm af lenses and some have said that the 18-70 at those focal lengths is comparable or better. I've also heard that these lenses perform better on film bodies than the Nikon digital bodies. These comments are subjective with little clarification, if any.

So... basically, my only 'knowledge' regarding these lenses is from a few test shots and a few user comments that I've seen. What I'm most interested right now is how the 20, 24, 28 and 35mm af glass compare against each other, and with other lenses like the 50mm 1.8 and the sigma 20mm 1.8. I'm not asking about preference towards certain focal lengths. That I can decide for myself pretty easily once I start shooting and comparing shots while using a cropped sensor body. I'm asking about the glass and the resulting image quality, and if there's any difference between the af and af-d lenses of each focal length.

Thanks for your comments guys!

[cyclohexane]

AF D lenses have the little "D" distance chip, which is supposed to offer better flash results, but everything I've read seems to indicate that it's a moot point with i-TTL.* D-TTL might show a difference with D-lenses, but I've never used D-TTL as all my cameras are either i-TTL capable or lack TTL completely.* Most lenses do not change when going from AF to AF D, but I've heard that some of the D zooms (35-70 f/2.8 comes to mind) perform noticeably better than non-D versions due to tweaks made with the newer lenses.* I do know that the 20mm AF D focuses closer than the non-D version (see Thom Hogan's review: http://www.bythom.com/20lens.htm ), but optically they're the same.

I recommend consulting Bjorn's site ( http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html ) as he's tried/owned just about every Nikkor in existence.* Many of the current wide-angle AF-D primes borrow optical formulas from the AIS versions, but not all of them do.* I think he notes most of the ones that were changed for AF (i.e. 35mm f/2 and 28mm f/2..* He really likes the optical quality of the 20mm f/2.8 AIS, which I own and use on both film and digital.* If there's anything specific you'd like to know about this lens, I can try to help as I use it all the time.* Uncle Frank used to contribute here, but unfortunately he's left the Camel; he had a 20mm f/2.8D AF.* If you run a search you can probably find his contributions relating to the 20mm f/2.8D here.* I suppose if I see him in the area (he's local to me), I could ask him about the AF lens, but I don't know what he looks like... LOL

[eClix]

I doubt that the image quality of the slow kit lens 18-70 is comparable or better than a fast prime at the same focal length setting. I know people that have the 24 and 28 and love them.

[DavidRM]

I bought my Nikon AF 20mm f/2.8 D last month. I love it. I'm finally able to "shoot wide" on my D70s.

I'm no professional, but here are some recent shots made with it:

http://www.davidrm.com/rmphotoblog/2...-river-bridge/

http://www.davidrm.com/rmphotoblog/2...-urban-forest/

I swap it off with my Nikon 50mm f/1.8 quite a bit, so other posts on the blog include a mix of both lenses.

I haven't used the 24mm or 28mm primes, so I can't talk about them. But the 20mm f/2.8 Nikkor has been a great lens for me. =)

-David

[rootrider]

Originally Posted by eClix

I doubt that the image quality of the slow kit lens 18-70 is comparable or better than a fast prime at the same focal length setting. I know people that have the 24 and 28 and love them.

of course.. logic and general experience makes this statement hard to believe. But I've seen it written a couple times, which is why I questioned it here.

[rootrider]

thanks for all your answers guys. If anything I got a few more links and a few more opinions. Now I just need the money to buy a couple more lenses

[eClix]

Nice stuff David! That lens seems pretty sharp .