Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Nikon 20mm f3.5 AIS
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2022 10:01 am    Post subject: Nikon 20mm f3.5 AIS Reply with quote

Nikon 20mm f3.5 AIS
It´s in very good condition, pricing was reasonable, whatever that means in times like this Laughing

Surprisingly easy to focus with the old ILCE7ii, much easier than the Hexanon 21mm f4. It´s known to be soft at infinity, mine is no exception to that. On the pro side is the pleasant handling and light weight.

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2022 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice places and nice pictures;

In your experience, how much of the softness at the edges can be attributed to the lens, and how much to the known problems with the vintage wide-angle of the thick sensor?


PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Ultrapix,

I don´t deny that problem exists. Here however, I do not suspect the sensor stack.

To be totally sure, I guess it would need a manual Nikon camera and a high resolution film, shoot the same motive with the film body and the digital camera, scan the result of the former one in comparable resolution and then compare the results.

This particular lens has a rather low resolution power at infinity. Take a look at the three following images; the first one is the original picture, the second one a 100% crop of the lower left corner, and the third one a 100% crop of the center. One can even see on #3 that the foreground to the lower left seems sharper than the center. The corner in #2 looks rather alright, given the age of the lens and their design. To me, it doesn´t look a lot like the sensor stack is messing up the corner resolution.

There is, of course, another possibility: that the lens is somehow misaligned. But here in this forum are a few images taken with the same lens, and they show similar characteristics.

I also have a Hexanon 21mm f4. Its opening towards the camera sensor is of similar size to that of the Nikon, so that the angle of the oncoming light towards the very corner of the sensor is also comparable - but look at the results of images 4, 5 and 6. It´s probably not perfect, but a whole lot better. That´s at least for me an indication that the sensor isn´t the issue. At least not a big one. I´d rather acknowledge that lenses of 40 and 50 years of age cannot be as perfect as modern counterparts and have their weaknesses in corners, both in resolution power and vignetting. But they still perform in their own special ways, sometimes way above what contemporary plastic turds are able to deliver, despite all their modern sharpness.




#1: Nikon 20mm f3.5 AIS at f11, ISO 100, 1/200 sec.


#2 Nikon 20mm f3.5 AIS Corner


#3 Nikon 20mm f3.5 Center





#4 Hexanon 21mm f4 at f16, ISO 200, 1/3 sec.


#2 Hexanon 21mm f4 Corner


#3 Hexanon 21mm f4 Center


Last edited by ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars on Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:44 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2022 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultrapix wrote:
Nice places and nice pictures;


Oh and by the way, thanks a lot for that compliment. I was so eager to answer that I forgot Wink


PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
Nice places and nice pictures;


Oh and by the way, thanks a lot for that compliment. I was so eager to answer that I forgot Wink


Thank you for your articulate response. I am unfortunately old enough to remember when this lens was introduced to the market. I remember vividly the disappointment of some reviewers at the change of course from the previous 20/4, a ultra wide-angle lens distinguished by an extraordinary (for the times) homogeneity of rendering across the field, something that put it in contrast to the "German school," which favored a large central presence at the expense of the edges. The 20/3.5 was blamed for adhering to this philosophy, and from the examples you post I think the fault lies as usual in a strong field curvature, which makes the far center, and the near edges sharp at the same time.
Even the oldest of the 20 Nikon, the first 3.5 , was more uniform than this computation. But that does not detract from the fact that in reportage it can render excellent service.

Ad maiora!


PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultrapix wrote:
ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
Nice places and nice pictures;


Oh and by the way, thanks a lot for that compliment. I was so eager to answer that I forgot Wink


Thank you for your articulate response. I am unfortunately old enough to remember when this lens was introduced to the market. I remember vividly the disappointment of some reviewers at the change of course from the previous 20/4, a ultra wide-angle lens distinguished by an extraordinary (for the times) homogeneity of rendering across the field, something that put it in contrast to the "German school," which favored a large central presence at the expense of the edges. The 20/3.5 was blamed for adhering to this philosophy, and from the examples you post I think the fault lies as usual in a strong field curvature, which makes the far center, and the near edges sharp at the same time.
Even the oldest of the 20 Nikon, the first 3.5 , was more uniform than this computation. But that does not detract from the fact that in reportage it can render excellent service.

Ad maiora!


The Nikkor 20 mm f/3, 5 AI-AI-S definitely has some field curvature which is producing fuzzy corners when focussed on the center and a fuzzy center when focussed on the corners. Since it its an ultra-compact lens (close to a pancake lens), it's perfectly understandable that Nikon couldn't eliminate this (difficult to correct) optical flaw. BTW, my Nikkor 20 mm f/3,5 AI and SMC Pentax -M 20 mm f/4 have both their fair share of field curvature. I nethertheless love using these lenses since they are very easy to transport and very resistant to stray light which makes them perfect for landscape photography and hiking. I'm using them mostly between f/8 and f/11 where they shine on my Sony A7R and A7II bodies, even in the image corners. It might be useful to focus on a point midways between the image center and one corner in order to reduce the impact of the field curvature.

I don't know the Nikkor 20 mm f/4 but i've used the earlier 20 mm f/3,5 pre-AI on a Nikon D2X (APS-C size sensor) and I wasn't particularly thrilled with IQ since the sharpness degraded quite markedly towards the borders. Thus,I certainly wouldn't recommend that lens to full-frame camera users.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2022 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alsatian2017 wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars wrote:
Ultrapix wrote:
Nice places and nice pictures;


Oh and by the way, thanks a lot for that compliment. I was so eager to answer that I forgot Wink


Thank you for your articulate response. I am unfortunately old enough to remember when this lens was introduced to the market. I remember vividly the disappointment of some reviewers at the change of course from the previous 20/4, a ultra wide-angle lens distinguished by an extraordinary (for the times) homogeneity of rendering across the field, something that put it in contrast to the "German school," which favored a large central presence at the expense of the edges. The 20/3.5 was blamed for adhering to this philosophy, and from the examples you post I think the fault lies as usual in a strong field curvature, which makes the far center, and the near edges sharp at the same time.
Even the oldest of the 20 Nikon, the first 3.5 , was more uniform than this computation. But that does not detract from the fact that in reportage it can render excellent service.

Ad maiora!


The Nikkor 20 mm f/3, 5 AI-AI-S definitely has some field curvature which is producing fuzzy corners when focussed on the center and a fuzzy center when focussed on the corners. Since it its an ultra-compact lens (close to a pancake lens), it's perfectly understandable that Nikon couldn't eliminate this (difficult to correct) optical flaw. BTW, my Nikkor 20 mm f/3,5 AI and SMC Pentax -M 20 mm f/4 have both their fair share of field curvature. I nethertheless love using these lenses since they are very easy to transport and very resistant to stray light which makes them perfect for landscape photography and hiking. I'm using them mostly between f/8 and f/11 where they shine on my Sony A7R and A7II bodies, even in the image corners. It might be useful to focus on a point midways between the image center and one corner in order to reduce the impact of the field curvature.

I don't know the Nikkor 20 mm f/4 but i've used the earlier 20 mm f/3,5 pre-AI on a Nikon D2X (APS-C size sensor) and I wasn't particularly thrilled with IQ since the sharpness degraded quite markedly towards the borders. Thus,I certainly wouldn't recommend that lens to full-frame camera users.


Well, I don't much believe in the syllogism that a full frame lens that has bad corners on APS has even worse corners on full frame. My experience has often shown otherwise, particularly in wide-angle lenses where the field curvature correction has a sinusoidal pattern (or even, to take a standard focal length example with the Leitz Noctilux aspherical 1.2, where the lowest quality point is a circular ring halfway between center and edges).

Having used the old 20 3.5 only on film in its day, I cannot make certain judgments, but I would bet it performs better on a D4 than on an APS.
However, this is just speculation. Returning to less ancient optics, the 20/4 definitely has greater edge performance than the later model, paid for by a bearable lowering of the center peak, and speaking of size, it is also smaller and I believe lighter.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Ultrapix"]
Alsatian2017 wrote:
Well, I don't much believe in the syllogism that a full frame lens that has bad corners on APS has even worse corners on full frame. My experience has often shown otherwise, particularly in wide-angle lenses where the field curvature correction has a sinusoidal pattern.


I agree fully.

Moreover there's a difference between full frame film and full frame digital. The pixels and bayer filter react differently when light comes from a pronounced angle (low telecentricity), as is the case with many legacy wide angle lenses.