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 20/3.5 UD (pre-Ai)
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 5:03 am    Post subject: Nikkor 20/3.5 UD (pre-Ai) Reply with quote

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.



PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 ?


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

der einrahmer wrote:
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 ?


A sternwheeler has one big paddlewheel at the back of the vessel. Here's a pic of the wake from the boat crossing Lake Tahoe, also with a 20 UD and Kodachrome 64 slide film.

Btw, the paddlewheel really is round, but perspective distortion of the 20mm makes the paddlewheel in the corner look pretty peculiar.



PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2011 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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)


PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2011 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
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)


That was my feeling on the 18/3.5 as well.

Your other suggestions are excellent, unless you use a Nikon camera. The register distance is too great on a Nikon, and you can't get those lenses to focus to infinity. The Zeiss can be purchased in a Nikon mount. Leica lenses can be modified with a new mount to work on Nikon, but then, they're Leicas and generally make all other lenses look quite affordable by comparison.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.



PostPosted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.



PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2011 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
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 wouldn't put money on that...

cooltouch wrote:
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.


Careful tilt of the camera was, in fact, why I had to crop it to 4:5 aspect ratio. If I tilted the camera more, the converging verticals became hideous. Tilted as it was, the verticals were nearly where I wanted them, but I then had a huge expanse of grass in the foreground that had to be cropped off.

I really wanted to get a picture of the entire Temple front reflected in the pool, but alas, a 20mm didn't give a wide enough view.

And, yes: perspective correction is very cool, especially if you don't have a camera with PC built in. But, as with many things (like sharpening, grad filters, etc), it's very easy to overuse it. I think it's always best to get the image as close as you can in the camera, and only do only minor tweeks PP.