20mm/2.8 nikor

[SHROOM]

Well - I bought one - 20mm/ 2.8 AF no 'D' for 100 dolars less than the 'D' types go for !

See no point in spending extra money for function that does not work!

[joemilton2]

Today I was forced to used my 20mm at Kings Hockey game.
(I couldn't bring a lense longer than 3" into the suites.)
I was very satisfied with the shots! However, using the flip up flash gave me more light than I needed. (clean up good in adobe). I have the Tokina 28-80mm 2.8 and I would love to see how it would have performed. Any one out there have any wide angle lense recommendations? Love this site..

[SHROOM]

I also have a nikon 28-80 D hardly ever use it . Your better choice probably was the 20mm prime also maybe you should have set your ISO lower if you got overexposed
You got just about as wide as can get without going into expensive and in my view problematic lenses like ' rectilinear or fisheye variety '
Ed

[Tom V]

Originally posted by SHROOM
... You got just about as wide as can get without going into expensive and in my view problematic lenses like ' rectilinear or fisheye variety '
Ed

The Nikkor 20mm, and the 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 105, all the way up to 800mm are rectilinear. Nikon makes a rectilinear 14mm and a 16mm full frame fisheye. The new 10.5 DX lens is fisheye, and the 12-24 DX is rectilinear.

Rectilinear mean that straight lines on the subject show up straight on the sensor (or film). Fisheye lenses create the roundy bendy images were straight line perspective is not corrected and they show up curved (except for lines going through the center of the image).

Wide and super wide lenses are often designated "rectilinear" or "fisheye" or "full frame fisheye" because in that range of focal lengths, it is possible to have 3 different 15mm lenses that are each of those optical designs. Each of the three 15mm lenses would produce drastically different results.

So-called problems with flare on super wide lenses, whether they are fisheye or rectilinear is not because of the lens per say, it is because they have such a wide angle of view and frequently include light sources that cause glare and flare. Put a super-telephoto lens hood on a 14mm lens, and the flare is eliminated, but so is the image (blocked along with the flare by the lens hood). Non-image forming light that strikes the surface of any lens is undesireable. On a super wide lens, there is just more of that light around that can reach the lens surface. It is just another characteristic that comes with the territory.

[SHROOM]

Hmmm ! 3 different kind of 14 mm Wow I will take a half a dozen of thouse !

[Sneakyracer]

The problem with most wide angles in 35mm is distortion, barrel and pincushion. Both are to me quite noticable even in nikkors 20mm and all of their wide angles for that matter. In some zooms its really bad. That problem is not exclusive to Nikon!

Most people wont notice or find objectionable the distortion in Nikons/Canons etc wide angle primes for 35mm but it is there for critical work.

Photograph a building, or a part of it whith the camera level in all axis and the film plane of course paralel to the facade and you will se doors bent, beams arch and all kinds of distortions. Me almost being an architect (im in my thesis) am bothered by those things.

I mean as a comparison my 55mm for my Pentax 67 (equivalent to a 28mm in 35mm) has very little if any pincushion or barrel distorsion. The difference is amazing.

One of the few wide angles that i know of for 35mm that has very little distortion is SCHNEIDER's 28mm PC lens for Nikon. Very rare lens but I think its still available and costos about $1000.

35mm has never been a good format for architectural photography but now with digi slr's that have more resolution and clear definition than any 35mm film are. Unfortunally the lenses havent caught up. Specially wide angles.

Schneider, again, is really a pioneer. It has built a set of lenses w/ digital shutter to be used in view cameras w/ digital backs. The trick is they are designed for todays current sized backs, that are no larger than 36~40mm square! That means that a 60mm super angulon that is extremely wide in 4x5 and even wide in medium format i a normal lens iwhen using a a digital back.

Well SCNEIDER's new lenses go down to 28mm!!! for view cameras using a digital back! that is great news.

Ok I got a little off topic.

Anyway, the 20mm is a good lens. I have used it a lot on the S2 and has nice color/contrast. Has low enough distortion for a wide angle lens in 35mm format. I am anxious to try the 12-24mm lens
though.

[SHROOM]

You are absolutely correct Sneakyracer there is a whole lot more than flares and glares that are inherantly problematic with wide and super wide angle lenses. You have correctly pointed out some of the shortcomings and there are others but unless you do a lot of enlarging - most go unnoticed . Personaly I think of all the super wide and fisheye lenses as expensive toys clearly with little if any commecial value - but that's only my oppinion .
I would like to try the 28mm Schneider or even Rodenstock - I don't know if they have any optics with S2 mounts I know Rodenstock has an APO 180mm macro I'd love to try - alas it costs more than S2 ! and my buget would gasp if I bought one!
Good luck with your thesis
Ed