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

Nikkor 20mm/2.8 - Nikkor 24mm/2.8
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:03 pm    Post subject: Nikkor 20mm/2.8 - Nikkor 24mm/2.8 Reply with quote

Today the weather is beautiful and so I went back to my favourite grafitti-covered wall to compare the two lenses noted above.
Now my 20mm Nikkor actually is an AF-lense, but as it is supposed to be identical to the 20mm/2.8 AIS MF-lense, I think one can get an idea of its quality or problems. I focussed manually, of course.
My 24mm lense is the Nikkor-N.C Auto version, which somebody filed down at home to convert it to AI. It is not a clean job, but it works perfectly well, so who cares. Besides I got it for 50€ over German eBay.
The pictures I took with the 20mm never really were very sharp, and so I took 3 pictures with AF and 3 with MF to make sure that it is not my eyes who made me focus badly. I show one of the pictures I focused manually.
All pictures taken @f8, ISO 320, all photos unsharpened.

Here are the first two, the 20mm above, the 24mm below:






Last edited by madamasu on Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:37 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are the two crops of both pictures:

20mm/2.8



24mm/2.8



PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are two more of the wall:








PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And the last two:







To my eyes the 24mm is superior to the 20mm, and also the 15mm Nikkor is better than the 20mm. So in case Attila hasn't yet made up his mind, which Nikon wide-angle to buy, I would definitely second the others in this thread and would advise him to go for the 24mm N or NC AI'd, or the 24mm AIS.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am surprised at how soft your 20/2.8 is. Perhaps a visit to nikon might help it? Nevertheless the 24 is usually sharper, but not by this much


patrickh


PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yah. Id say there is something wrong with the 20mm or it plainly is no good. I have no idea about nikons performance in general on the 20mm. But if I bought a lense Id expect more.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nice test madamasu! the 24 is up his reputation of best 24mm;
the 20 look fine too, just need little more sharpening
about the focusing with the 20, why not use the D700 with liveview


PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you very much for the test - but I have to confess that the 20mm does not make me very jealous, shot at f8!

Did you use a crop-cam or your D700 for these?

I will try to shoot some pics with my 20/4 these days to compare for Attila, alas, I'm afraid I only have a D40 at hand.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I took these pictures with the D700. Thanks for reminding me.

Good idea , Poilu. I simply forgot about the live-view modus and shot a few with AF, but they weren't any better.
All are handheld, since I didn't feel like running around with a tripod.

By the way-here is what Mr. Roslett has to say about the 20mm 2.8 AF:

Quote:
The successor to the MF 20/2.8 is often stated to have identical optics, but I'm not entirely convinced that this is true and think Nikon tweaked the design so make the lens focus better in AF. Direct comparison with the MF lens shows that the AF has more curvature of field, at least in the close range where this feature counts, and slightly more CA. Image sharpness isn't entirely up to that of the MF brother at any aperture, but the contrast is slightly higher. Probably Nikon tweaked the coating as well.


So maybe the MF-version is better after all.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm surprised by the general softness, poor contrast, and overall poor showing on the AF 20mm f/2.8. I would expect my 20mm f/4 to give much better results (but have only used it on a crop camera).

The 24mm does fairly well here.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many thanks!! I had already 24mm f2.8 AIS I prefer over any other what I had in the past (Yashica ML 24mm, Olympus OM 24mm f2, Nikkor 24mm f2 , Vivitar, Kiron etc) I never had 20mm f2.8 and 20mm f4 if you don't mind I would ask you guys more samples like these.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:13 am    Post subject: Samples from Nikkor 20mm f/4, for comparison Reply with quote

Mainly showing off resistance to flare.


Nikon D40, Nikkor 20mm f/4 non-AI @ ISO 200, 1/250s, around f8


Nikon D40, Nikkor 20mm f/4 @ ISO 200, f/11, 1/80s.


Nikon D90, Nikkor 20mm f/4 K, factory AI kit @ ISO 800, f/8, 1/125s


PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I personally prefer to judge from normal photos like those of Chris.
This lens looks very fine to me. Look in the last photo, distortion is very well corrected. Very well handling the flare.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two more with the 24mm, taken in early February at a lake iced over against the afternoon winter-sun looking through the window.Both with the D700.

The first one at ISO 1600 @f2.8, lightly photo-shopped, or else the face would be completely dark:


The second at ISO 1250, also @f2.8