Nikkor 20/3.5 UD (pre-Ai)

Arninetyes · Expire: 2013-03-26

The first ultra-wide Nikon produced for 35mm SLRs, the 20/3.5 UD also was the largest and heaviest of any, requiring a 72mm filter and weighing in at a hefty 390 grams--it's only an f/3.5 yet it weighs almost 45% more than the 20/2.8 Ais. Still, it's not so large and heavy as to cause problems.

Best points? It has a surprisingly low field curvature, which makes it seem sharper than it is. It has excellent color with very little CA.

Worst points? It's heavy, but, most importantly, it has significant issues with ghosting when pointed at strong light sources.

What about sharpness? According to the internet experts, it's not the sharpest of Nikkor's 20s. However, it's a very minor difference, and photographic technique remains more important than minor sharpness differences. I have both the UD and a 20/3.5 Ais. I can get the same apparent sharpness from either, or I can screw up either. It's all in the technique.

Of my two 20s, I prefer using the UD over the Ais most of the time. But, there are reasons why I sometimes choose to use the Ais. If I want to carry a lens all day, the 20/3.5 Ais is more compact and weighs only 235g. Or, if I know I'll be shooting into the sun, I'll use the Ais. Not only is the Ais more ghost resistant than the UD, it's the most ghost/flare resistant lens I have.

Following are a couple examples from the UD.

First, is a picture from aboard a sternwheeler on Lake Tahoe. This was shot with an F100 and my last roll of Kodachrome 64 (it's a mediocre scan--sorry. The slide looks much better.). In my opinion, colors are better with my UD than with my Ais. Someday I should do a shootout between them, just for fun.

Second, is also from Lake Tahoe. This is a mediocre scan of a not-very-good slide (Kodachrome 64) demonstrating exactly what happens if you point a UD at the sun.

56 DIN · Expire: 2021-11-18

having 20 mm AF and UD - i also like the UD colors more and i like the mechanic - you get a different feeling in your hands

btw, is a " sternwheeler " a vessel that moves by using 2 big wheels at its sides - working reverse to a watermill drive ?

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

This a great lens I had in past, I did love it.

Arninetyes · Expire: 2013-03-26

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks for this thread.

I see what you mean about ghosting from bright light sources. The image immediately above shows some reflections in the water off to the left. There's a fair amount of purple CA along with the ghosting.

Still, this doesn't dissuade me from my plans to acquire one. I've always wanted one, and I really appreciate these pictures.

Arninetyes · Expire: 2013-03-26

Oh, not trying to dissuade. It's just that, if you want one, it's always best to know good and bad points. The UD has its flaws, but for me, I can work around or overlook its flaws to access its finer points. Since I'm using Nikon, there aren't many alternatives for me. I could:

1) sell both and buy a 20/2.8 Ais, but I'd lose the compact size/weight and flare-resistance of the 20/3.5 Ais and the flat field and wonderful color of the UD; or,

2) sell both and buy a Nikkor 18/3.5, but I don't think it would be an improvement.

3) sell both (plus several other lenses) and get a Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon T*.
Considering the Zeiss costs $1,800, I don't see that as a viable choice.

4) Buy another brand camera so I'd have access to less expensive, ultra-wide lenses--but buying another camera kind of defeats the purpose of buying less expensive lenses;

5) or...?

As for color fringing, what you see in that picture is an extreme example (sunlight against dark water, near the edge of the image); it's usually not an issue, but, as with most ultra-wide lenses, it's there.

I really like the UD, and have no plans to sell it--unless I can figure out a way to afford the Zeiss, anyway.

Later, I'll look for and try to post a couple pix taken with the 20/3.5 Ais so you can see that one, too. It's a nice lens, and I would have been perfectly happy with it, if it weren't for the UD.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

I kept 20mm f2.8 AIS very compact stunning lens. 18mm Nikon not better lens just wider I belive less sharp than UD.

21mm Distagon is a dream lens , but way to expensive for most of us.
Yashica 21mm ML , Olympus OM 21mm f3.5 , f2 Olympus OM 18mm f3.5 all are excellent lenses perhaps all better than UD ( I am unsure)

Arninetyes · Expire: 2013-03-26

Arninetyes · Expire: 2013-03-26

Below is a quick snapshot I took a couple days ago on a job. I snapped it just to demonstrate how different the behavior of the 20/3.5 Ais is when pointed into the sun compared to the UD. I prefer using the UD most of the time, but when shooting into bright light, this little compact beats anything else I have.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Yes, very well controlled for any sort of flare, it would appear.

Arninetyes · Expire: 2013-03-26

I'm currently in Salt Lake City, and thought I'd drop an architectural shot in this thread. The Mormon Temple was shot with a Nikon D700 and a Nikkor 20/3.5 UD. I didn't like the 2:3 aspect ratio with this subject, so I cropped it to 4:5. The UD does have a little barrel distortion, but you can see that there isn't much.

By contrast, my wife (who thinks I'm looney for using manual focus, prime lenses) was using a new AF Nikkor 28-300/3.5-5.6G (at 28mm). She took one look at the bowed building edge in her first photo and didn't even try any other building shots. I'd love to post it for comparison, but she deleted it immediately.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Wow, a fantastic impression of height generated by that image. So maybe now, after your wife has seen pics like this, the 'using mf lenses' thing won't seem so odd to her?

I also like the way you left a bit of an inward slant to the building. The tendency is to eliminate this in PP using perspective correction, but I've found from doing this that if I make the vertical lines truly vertical in my image "enhancements" that often the opposite effect is achieved. That is, the building looks like its verticals will meet at some point below the image. It's an optical illusion and it's caused by our being so used to seeing perspective when we look at tall things. So it's best to leave in a little, I think. Which is easy enough to do without pp with a very wide lens like your 20mm by just paying attention to the tilt of the camera.

Arninetyes · Expire: 2013-03-26