1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Ditching the 20/2.8

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Uncle Frank, Aug 1, 2007.

  1. I decided a super wide angle would look good in my kit, and that a 12-24 would eliminate my need for my 20/2.8. Sit I put it up for sale a few weeks ago. Then I had second thoughts and withdrew it. Then I had third and fourth thoughts, and still haven't decided what I'm going to do :confused: .

    In the midst of all this planning, plotting, and indecision, I've used the 20/2.8 more than usual, trying to see if I'd miss it.

    83047792.gif
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    View attachment 109107
    View attachment 109108
    View attachment 109109
    View attachment 109110
    View attachment 109111
    View attachment 109112

    I think I would.
     
  2. I use my 12-24 more than any other lens probably. I bought my 20/2.8 to use for panoramas and because it gives me wide coverage at f2.8. So, I keep both just for that reason.
     
  3. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    Frank, u make good use of whatever lens u shoot with and these pics are lovely .....i've never shot with one but i would think unless u absolutely need the speed from the 20 2.8 one of the super wides makes a lot more sense, imho anyway...and what Steve said really sums it up....;-)
     
  4. lamk

    lamk Guest

    Dear Uncle Frank,
    I am surprised you're ditching it. You're the one who convinced me to get it two years back when you were still active at "the other review site". I don't use it for landscape anymore. I put it on my d50 when I want a point and shoot. If the weight, f/4 and image quality of the 12/24 are non issue than ditch the 20f/2.8. I am still hopeful there will be a full frame Nikon where the 20 will shine again. The 20 dosen't do as well on a DX digital body c/w a full frame film camera.
     
  5. fks

    fks

    Apr 30, 2005
    sf bay area
    hi frank-

    i sold my 20mm f/2.8 since i have two other lenses that duplicate the focal length. i miss it when i want to travel light; the 20mm f/2.8 barely takes up any room and weighs a pittance compared to the 17-35mm AF-S or sigma 12-24mm that i have.

    if i could go back in time, i would not have sold my 20mm.

    ricky
     
  6. mematsu

    mematsu

    May 2, 2007
    los angeles
    Fun, fun, fun....

    But, which one are you going to get?::smile:
     
  7. What about full frame just down the road?
     

  8. I'm still not sure I'm going to get either. Phippe's generously agreed to lend me his Tokina for a few days so I can decide if I want to do it at all. But if I do, it will be the Nikkor or the Tokina.
     
  9. That's not an issue for me, Rory. Even if they decide to make one, I wouldn't be able to afford a Nikon full frame dslr.
     
  10. I've never agreed with them, Ed. The reason I'm having a problem deciding is that my 20/2.8 has given me such pleasing results on my dslrs.
     
  11. rvink

    rvink

    Mar 21, 2006
    New Zealand
    Nice shots, but these were all taken in daylight, probably at a medium aperture. I'm sure you could have taken the same shots with the 12-24. I can also see a fair amount of barrel distortion in the shots where the sea horizon is near the top of the frame. I believe the 12-24 is better corrected for distortion at 20mm (and also for CA).

    I'd keep the 20/2.8 if you prefer its smaller size, need the extra speed or need a "full frame" lens (I believe the 12-24 is also "full frame" above 16mm).
     
  12. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    I am sure Uncle Frank would take equally beautiful or better pictures with 12-24mm.
     
  13. I'm in the opposite situation. I have Tokina 12-24, and every single shot that I take with it, ends up being above 17, and in most cases above 20mm.

    Thinking what I could get instead, and while Tamron 17-50 would be in the same price range, Nikon 17-55 is what seems to be really attractive ... but so out of reach.
     
  14. Uncle Frank,

    You take very nice photos, sir, but then we've covered that territory before.

    To the point, more of less... I started out with a 50/1.4, 35/2, 85/1.8 and 60/2.8 and an 18-200. I sold them all. Bought a 70-200VR and a 17-55. Thought that would suffice. Not so.

    So I added an 85/1.4 (a bit faster than the 1.8) and bought another copy of the 50/1.4 because I just love that lens. Then I bought another 35/2, which I am quickly falling in love with, also... again.

    The point I'm making (I hope) is that even with all the lenses I've bought and sold, I've pretty much replaced the original primes I began with... even though I added some zooms (not to mention a Sigma 10-20). I've never been sorry I bought the zooms, but as you can tell, I certainly was sorry that I sold the primes. In fact, you suggested as much to me long ago when I was agonizing over the decision to sell the 60 (which I haven't replaced...yet).

    What can it hurt to hold onto the 20? It obviously fills a need for you. So what if the need is overlapped in FL with a 12-24! There is still the appeal of 2.8 glass versus f/4. There is a difference. There is also a difference in weight and size that is not inconsiderable. And if you're anything like me, if you sell the 20 you may discover that you miss it enough to choose to buy it again. But isn't that part of the fun of this hobby?

    Laughing a little on the inside as I watch you going through the LL motions!
    God bless and enjoy this wonderful pasttime!
    Doug
     
  15. Not a clue at this point, Edward. I borrowed Philippe's Tokina last night, and will give it a test ride over the weekend.
     
  16. Uncle Frank,
    I started reading this thread surprised and with a deep curiosity. Being an owner of one Sigma 10-20, I recently bought an used 20 2.8 Ais, and guess what: my decision was strongly based on your top quality pictures taken with your 20.
    Now the facts: maybe me but since I got the 20 I just use the Sigma whenever I absolutely need the 10-14 range. To shoot landscapes beyond 15 and or architecture I rather use the 20 as I find its (minimum) distortions better corrected. Also, of course we are talking about a 2.8 against a 4-5.6...
    Moreover, I don't believe that you'd get the same accurate results with the zoom, shooting portraiture and candids. I don't know either with the Tokina nor the Nikon but with the Sigma the results are somehow weird...
    If you feel the need go for the 12-24 but please don't sell the 20 as I am sure you'll miss it.
    Best Regards
    Rui
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.