Best Nikkor 20mm?

[Vics]

Please help me decide on which 20mm Nikkor to get my Nikon F for Christmas. Post comments and/or comments. The list comprises (I guess) the UD 3.5, the D f4, and the 2.8 (14 Elements!). There may be others, but I don't want an AF lens. Which one is Legendary? Someone here said that Galen Rowell loved the f4 version (compact?), but what did Pete Turner use? Show me pics.

[KoNickon]

Don't forget the very compact 3.5 AIS, which is a fine performer and remarkably flare-free (important if the sun is in the frame). I think it's lower priced than the others typically.

[Vics]

Originally Posted by KoNickon

Don't forget the very compact 3.5 AIS, which is a fine performer and remarkably flare-free (important if the sun is in the frame). I think it's lower priced than the others typically.

...and that one is different than the UD?

[FrankS]

From what I know, the earlier nikkor 20(s?) was/were a biogon design and required the SLR mirror to be locked up, and therefore also needed an external viewfinder. The later nikkor 20s were a retro focus design without the deep rear element and could be used in normal SLR fashion.

[Vics]

My only source material is Herb Keppler's The Nikon Way (1977) and he makes no mention of that in describing the three that I've mentioned. I think I'll rule out the UD 3.5 because of its 72mm filter size. 52mm accessory size has been my guiding principle since I started down this road 21 years ago.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Vics

Please help me decide on which 20mm Nikkor to get my Nikon F for Christmas. ...

The Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI-S with 52mm filter is the one to get. Small, light, excellent imaging qualities. The later 20mm f/2.8 with CRC shows a modest gain in imaging qualities across the field close up, but I never had any problems with the f/3.5 lens and found it sharper overall.

I used this lens with my Nikon FM/FE2/F3 kit from 1982 to 2001, when I sold out of Nikon gear. In 2007, I obtained another one and used it with my Panasonic L1 and later G1 bodies, where it performed with similar excellent quality. (I sold that one in 2010, should have kept it.)

I made many many photos with this lens, most of which are not easy to locate as they've not been posted, were made on film, didn't embed the info into EXIF data, etc etc. I could probably find a bunch but don't have time at the moment to hunt them up.

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by Vics

Please help me decide on which 20mm Nikkor to get my Nikon F for Christmas. Post comments and/or comments. The list comprises (I guess) the UD 3.5, the D f4, and the 2.8 (14 Elements!). There may be others, but I don't want an AF lens. Which one is Legendary? Someone here said that Galen Rowell loved the f4 version (compact?), but what did Pete Turner use? Show me pics.

Just to confirm what u heard. Here is link to what he carried.

http://www.mountainlight.com/rowell/gr_camera_bag.html

Gary

[Dwig]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

The Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI-S with 52mm filter is the one to get. Small, light, excellent imaging qualities. ...

+1

The f/3.5 AIs (52mm filter) is definitely superior to the f/4 and the old f/3.5 UD (72mm filter).

[E.M]

I had the 3.5 ai from new in the eighties and stupidly sold it . Now have a 2.8 afd and don't like it at all , thinking of selling it , because of too much distortion . Waiting for a Schneider Kreuchnach in that focal length , hopefully next year .

[sahe69]

One more vote for the AI-S f/3.5. Very happy with it.

[Joe Brugger]

I'm still using the 20/3.5 AIS with a D300. Excellent lens, very compact and very well built.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7431278...gs/20mmf35ais/

[Frontman]

I have used the UD, 3.5, and 2.8. My favorite of the bunch is the 2.8 AIS. It doesn't use the 52mm filter, but I love the images it produces.

[kxl]

Unlike others, I was not happy with my sample of the 20/3.5 AIS when shooting at infinity. Up close it was something special, especially when coupled with a K1 ring. Another nice quality is that it was flare-free. I eventually decided on the CV 20/3.5 SL II - better all around than the sample I had of the Nikon 20/3.5, although not as flare free. If I were to get an F-mount 20/21 lens today and had the budget for it, I would seriously look at the Zeiss ZF.2 21mm/2.8.

[Bill Clark]

I have the Nikkor - UD Auto 1:3.5 20 mm lens.

Purchased it when I was serving in the military 40 plus years ago.

Wonderful lens. It has been with me on various journeys all over planet earth.

[yossarian123]

I tried the 20mm f/4 and wasn't terribly pleased with it. I was much much happier with the 20mm 2.8 AF-D. Although in the end I just kept my 17-35 2.8 and sold the others. That zoom is at least as sharp as the primes.

[Vics]

Originally Posted by GaryLH

Just to confirm what u heard. Here is link to what he carried.

http://www.mountainlight.com/rowell/gr_camera_bag.html

Gary

Thanks, Gary and thanks also to Galen, wherever you are. I was leaning that way myself, but it looks as if a concensus is building around the 3.5 AIs which was unknown to me til today.

[Vics]

Originally Posted by PKR

I honestly believe lenses vary in quality (sometimes greatly) from lens to lens, especially when evaluating older used lenses. ...
So, you can talk about famous lenses, but the famous lens you buy may not perform to its heritage if it was mistreated. This also happens with new, out of the box gear that was banged around during shipping. Vibration (air shipping) will damage gear, showing no exterior evidence of any problem to the box or the lens. I test my gear yearly or sooner if I suspect a problem - then I use it to make lots of pictures.

Really and truly I couldn't agree more. My budget does, however constrain me to these old, used lenses. So what I'm doing here is just trying to get in the ballpark, and hope to get a lens that performs well within that universe.
I really do appreciate your very thoughtful comments.

[Vics]

Originally Posted by kxl

,,, If I were to get an F-mount 20/21 lens today and had the budget for it, I would seriously look at the Zeiss ZF.2 21mm/2.8.

...and therein lies the rub. Thanks for that, though. It's worrying to hear about poor performance at infinity. That was one of the things I had admired about the f4, its pinpoint sharpnessa at great distances. Was it poor across the aperture range?

[kxl]

Originally Posted by Vics

...and therein lies the rub. Thanks for that, though. It's worrying to hear about poor performance at infinity. That was one of the things I had admired about the f4, its pinpoint sharpnessa at great distances. Was it poor across the aperture range?

As with most lenses, the more you stop down,the better. For the sample that I had, f3.5 to f5.6 just did not seem as sharp as I hoping for at infinity; f8 was good, f11 was best.

IMO if you want a 20mm for infinity the 20/4 is a better choice than the 20/3.5... Or maybe look for a used CV 20/3.5.

[raid]

I have the non retro focus 21/4. I have never used a Nikkor 20mm lens.

[Dirk]

I had the 20mm 3.5 UD, the 20mm f/4 AI'd, and now the AF 20mm 2.8D. The UD was overall a great lens for B&W, but not as great for color. It had flare/ghosting issues. The "Galen Rowell 20" was just so so in regards to sharpness and contrast. The AF 20/2.8D is my favorite so far. Great color, contrast and pretty compact in spite of the 62mm filter size.

[sparrow6224]

I love my 20/3.5 AIS but have done no color work with it. I'm about to sell my UD Nikkor 20/3.5 with original screw-in Nikon lens cap..... watch the classifieds here next few days.

[bigeye]

I agree. An old Time/Life photog acquaintance buys 4 lenses and tests each, picks the best and returns the rest. I've found large variation between lenses and test each one. Most recently, a used 24mm 2.8 AF-D - couldn't get a good image from it but it looked perfectly good.

Originally Posted by PKR

I honestly believe lenses vary in quality (sometimes greatly) from lens to lens, especially when evaluating older used lenses.