Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,536   Posts: 1,572,737   Online: 764
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    A cheap alternative could be the 20mm f/2.8 Arsat H.
    290g & 62mm filters.

    I haven't used mine much, but first impressions were seriously good (sharp corners, low distortion & vignetting), much better than the MIR 20mm lenses.
    (My "seriously good" standard for ultrawides is Leica & Zeiss).

    As with all Soviet & POS equipment, sample quality may vary...
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,521
    Images
    90
    I have a Nikkor 20mm 3.5.
    I've never used a microscope to look at the prints from it, nor made a side by comparison with something made by a lens that might be considered better.

    But I have made many very solid pictures with it, that can be enlarged as much as you like.

    I like its compactness, and especially like that it takes 52mm filters.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    873
    Nikon 20mm f3.5 - any good? No it's very good . . . ;-)



    Quote Originally Posted by Kiron Kid View Post
    The Tamron SP 20-40 f/2.7-3.5, is every bit as sharp as primes in that focal range.
    I am highly skeptical but would consider your proof of this.

  4. #14
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    561
    Quote Originally Posted by perkeleellinen View Post
    I have a Nikon 18/3.5 which is nice but quite big and heavy. I tend not to use it because if this so I'm wondering if I should trade it for a 20/3.5.
    I had a Nikon 20mm f/3.5 but traded it for a Nikon 18mm f/3.5 because at that time, 20mm was my widest wide-angle lens and I needed something a little wider.

    Both were very good lenses.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    All the Nikon 35's are very good. My favorite is the f/4.
    That is a typo, which I am sure you all gathered. I meant to say 20's, not '35's.

    And my favorite is the f/4 solely for the reason of size. Because I don't use 20mm lenses that much, I tend not to bring them with. But every now and then, there is a shot that would be great with a 20mm lens, and I cannot take the shot. The very small size of the lens would allow me to bring it along without adding much weight or bulk to my bag.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin