It has been 30 years since Nikon first introduced the original Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 Ai-S lens and long 20 years since the autofocus version, the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D was released to the market. Since then, the 20mm prime sadly did not receive much attention, so it was about time for Nikon to refresh the line with a modern version. Nikon finally revealed a replacement on September 12, 2014 and the new lens came with a nice surprise – the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED is not only completely revamped in terms of optical design, but it is also 1.3 stops faster than its predecessors. Personally, I have been very interested in checking out the new 20mm f/1.8G lens, because I found the 28mm f/1.8G to be a bit too long for my taste. And although I love my 24mm f/1.4G (see my detailed review here), it is pretty expensive and often quite heavy to carry around. Thus, a wider, lighter and much less expensive lens sounded very appealing to me. I have had the joy of shooting with the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G for the past three months and as you will see in this review, the lens deserves high praises for its superb optical performance. Without giving any more spoilers, let’s jump into the review and see where and how it shines.
When it comes to ultra wide angle lenses (those lenses that typically cover focal lengths shorter than 24mm on full-frame), many photographers often use zoom lenses, like the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G, Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G or DX zoom / third party lenses, because they give more flexibility in situations where one cannot physically move closer or away from the subject – zoom lenses certainly have their conveniences. But those conveniences often come with their own list of problems, whether it is the high price tag, heavy weight and bulk, smaller maximum aperture or inferior optics. Therefore, prime lenses do have their use and advantages when compared to zooms. When assessing wide angle prime lenses, the biggest challenge for most photographers remains determining the best focal length. Finding out how well a particular focal length can serve one’s needs can be challenging, as it depends on many factors, including the type of photography one is primarily engaged in. Architecture, landscape and astro photographers might often enjoy shorter focal lengths, while portrait photographers generally tend to stay in the 35mm+ range. Even for portrait photography though, there are always situations where an ultra wide angle lens can come in handy (such as when photographing large groups, or composing wide to include more of the scene). So even if one does not frequently use such lenses, some situations call for going very wide. Because of this, I practically always make room for an ultra wide angle lens in my bag.
Having previously used and tested the Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G, I found 28mm on full-frame to be a bit too long for my taste, so I kept my 24mm f/1.4G prime as my workhorse for those wide angle moments. Those 4mm of additional focal length might not seem like a lot, but there is a pretty big difference! And the wider you go, the more noticeable each mm of focal length becomes. The same thing applies to the 20mm f/1.8G – it is significantly wider than a 24mm lens, a difference of 10° in terms of angle of view, as illustrated below:
I have received a number of requests from our readers, who asked me if I could compare the 20mm f/1.8G to the 28mm f/1.8G, but in reality, it would never be an apples-to-apples comparison due to huge differences (almost 20°!) in angle of view. As you can see from the above image, the difference between 20mm and 28mm is massive in terms of field of view.
However, if one decides to go with a single wide or ultra-wide angle Nikkor prime with a budget not exceeding $1K to complement such lenses as 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.8G and 85mm f/1.8G, then the choice is between the 20mm f/1.8G and 28mm f/1.8G lenses. If I were to pick between 20mm and 28mm, I would pick the former. With modern high-resolution sensors, if I wanted to get a bit tighter, I know I have the option to crop. But if I go with a longer focal length, I am limiting myself in those situations where I cannot move back to get a wider shot. Others will prefer 28mm and skip the 35mm, which also works. My personal choice for modern primes under 100mm today would comprise of: 20mm f/1.8G, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.8G and 85mm f/1.8G for budget and 24mm f/1.4G, 35mm f/1.4G, 50mm f/1.8G and 85mm f/1.4G for high-end, which would probably cover 99% of my photography needs. If I considered third party options, I would swap the 35mm f/1.4G and 50mm f/1.8G with Sigma Art f/1.4 series lenses.
So if you are still torn between 20, 24 and 28mm prime lens options and you already have a 35mm, my suggestion would be to explore the 20mm f/1.8G. If you only want a single wide angle lens that is not too wide or too narrow to complement your 50mm, then the 28mm f/1.8G might be a better candidate.
Hope this answers the focal length questions and concerns. Let’s now move on to lens specifications.
1) Lens Specifications
Main Features:
- Nikon Silent Wave Motor (SWM) enables fast, accurate and quiet autofocus.
- Extra-low Dispersion (ED) element offers superior sharpness and color correction by effectively minimizing chromatic aberration.
- Two aspherical lens elements virtually eliminate coma and other types of aberration, even when shooting at the widest available aperture.
- M/A focus mode switch enables quick changes between manual and autofocus operation.
- Rear Focus (RF) provides smooth and fast autofocus while eliminating front barrel rotation and lens length changes.
- Nano Crystal Coat effectively reduces ghost and flare.
- Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC) enhances light transmission efficiency and offers superior color consistency and reduced flare.
Technical Specifications:
- Mount Type: Nikon F-Bayonet
- Focal Length: 20mm
- Maximum Aperture: f/1.8
- Minimum Aperture: f/16
- Format: FX/35mm
- Maximum Angle of View (DX-format): 70°
- Maximum Angle of View (FX-format): 94°
- Maximum Reproduction Ratio: 0.23x
- Lens Elements: 13
- Lens Groups: 11
- Diaphragm Blades: 7
- Super Integrated Coating: Yes
- Autofocus: Yes
- AF-S (Silent Wave Motor): Yes
- Internal Focusing: Yes
- Minimum Focus Distance: 0.66 ft. (0.2m)
- Focus Mode: Auto, Manual
- G-type: Yes
- Filter Size: 77mm
- Accepts Filter Type: Screw-on
- Dimensions (Approx.): 3.2 in. (82.5 mm) x 3.1 in. (80.5 mm)
- Weight (Approx.): 12.6 oz. (355 g)
2) Lens Construction
Lens construction is quite advanced for a budget ultra wide angle lens. The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G contains a total of 13 lens elements, two of which are “Extra-low Dispersion” (ED) lens elements that are typically used on high-end Nikkor lenses to boost sharpness and contrast. In addition, two aspherical lens elements are used for correcting spherical aberration issues, as shown below:
If you would like to see more details about the lens, please see our Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G page in the lens database.
3) Lens Handling and Build
The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED has a similar build as the 35mm f/1.8G ED and other recent Nikkor prime lenses, with a hard and textured plastic exterior, a metal mount and a rubber gasket on the lens mount to provide good sealing against dust making its way into the camera. The lens feels solid in hands, definitely no worse than any of the modern professional Nikkor prime. Size-wise, it is not as small as the classic Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D, but for a reason – with 1.3 stops faster aperture, it is a given that the lens would be larger in comparison. Also, larger size is a good thing, as the lens feels comfortable to support it with your left hand while hand-holding the camera. Unlike the 35mm f/1.8G, there is a gold ring around the front barrel of the lens, which indicates “pro” quality and more complex design (Nano-coating, 2 aspherical and 2 ED elements vs standard coating and 1 of each on the 35mm f/1.8G).
The lens takes standard 77mm filters, which is great if you are planning to use polarizing filters and filter holder systems (vignetting performance with filters is provided further down below). Despite being a pro-grade lens though, the filter thread is plastic, which is unfortunate, as it could potentially wear out with repetitive mounting and dismounting of lens filters if you are not careful. On the bright side, nothing moves when the lens focuses, so you do not have to worry about having to re-adjust your polarizing filter when using it in the field. In contrast, older AF-D lens designs often had rotating front elements, making them hard to use with filters (the 20mm f/2.8D is an exception, due to having inner focus design). Additionally, the front element of the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED does not move in and out like it does on some Nikkor primes and it is not recessed deep inside, making it pretty easy to clean and maintain.
The focus ring is quite thick, making the lens very easy and convenient to use for manual focusing with a thumb and index fingers, whether shooting images or video. A petal-shaped HB-72 Lens Hood is provided with the lens. It snaps easily on the front of the lens and sits tight without wobbling. The M/A and M switch on the side of the lens allows autofocus with manual focus override and full manual focus operation. The latest Nikon DSLRs immediately recognize the focus position and some even provide notifications on the information (“I” button) screen.
As I have already pointed out, the lens is very light and compact – at 355 grams, it is a bit heavier than its predecessor, the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D, which weighs 270 grams. It is also slightly heavier than the Nikkor 28mm f/1.8G, which weighs 300 grams.
4) Autofocus Performance and Accuracy
The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G features silent wave motor (SWM) technology, which not only makes autofocus near silent, but also quite fast in operation. Since the lens is so wide, its distance scale is pretty limited – from 0.66 feet (minimum focus) to 1.3 feet, after which it is infinity. As a result, autofocus speed is near-instant: going from near focus to infinity only takes about half a second, which is incredibly fast. Autofocus accuracy is also impressive. Whether I used the lens in bright light, or in low-light indoors conditions at a wedding venue, the lens was able to acquire focus consistently when using the Nikon D750 DSLR. Low-light performance with older Nikon cameras might not be equally as good though, since previous generation bodies are not rated the same (see my detailed Nikon D750 review for more information on this). My copy of the lens coupled very well with both D750 and D810 camera bodies and did not require any AF fine tuning to yield superb sharpness, even wide open.
Let’s take a look at the optical features of the lens and its sharpness characteristics on the high-resolution D810.
5) Lens Sharpness, Contrast and Color Rendition
When I initially saw the manufacturer-provided MTF curve of the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED lens, I got very excited to see how good it looked when compared to the 28mm f/1.8G lens. Both sharpness and contrast of the lens looked very promising at maximum aperture, so I imagined how good the lens would get when stopped down. When I finally measured the lens in my Imatest lab, my early estimates proved to be correct – the lens does indeed perform extremely well for a wide angle lens. Not only did it outperform the 28mm f/1.8G lens, but it also yielded better sharpness figures in the center than the legendary 24mm f/1.4G lens! Take a look at the below chart:
The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED starts out very strong at large apertures. Center performance is excellent wide open, with performance characteristics being very similar to those of the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G ED lens. At f/2.8, the lens yields very impressive sharpness in the center, which only slightly improves when stopped down. Peak center performance is reached at f/4, with excellent overall performance at f/5.6, where both mid-frames and corners look very good. Unlike the 28mm f/1.8G lens, the 20mm f/1.8G practically had no focus shift and field curvature was far better controlled too. To see how good the above lens compares to other Nikkor primes like 24mm f/1.4G and 28mm f/1.8G, please see the comparisons section further down below.
Thanks to the excellent optical design of the lens, microcontrast is also superb, very similar to what you see on very expensive and high-end Nikkor lenses. Thanks to Nano-coating, Super Integrated Coating and high quality glass used in the lens, the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED yields very natural and pleasing colors.
6) Bokeh
Wide angle lenses are not suited for yielding pleasing bokeh and the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED is not an exception. As I have previously demonstrated in a number of reviews, use of aspherical elements usually results in onion-shaped bokeh, so if you look really close at how the lens renders bright out of focus highlights, you will definitely see those onion rings. At the same time, out of focus transitions look rather pleasing and not as distracting as they typically do on zoom and lower-end prime lenses, even when stopped down, as shown in the below image samples:
It is important to understand that with such a wide angle lens that reaches infinity at just a little over a meter, one would have to stand very close to a subject to be able to effectively isolate them from the background. And as you might already know, getting too close to your subject will distort their features, so it is best to avoid photographing people at very close distances with this lens. Although I have provided a number of examples of people photography with the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G, the ones that show subjects close-up are cropped and others clearly show distorted facial and body features. Unless your purpose is to specifically distort the subject, make sure to keep a safe distance and avoid placing the subject in the corner of the frame.
7) Vignetting
Ultra wide angle lenses like the 20mm f/1.8G are particularly attractive to architecture and landscape photographers, who genuinely care about how such lenses handle vignetting, especially when coupled with filters. To give a good understanding of vignetting performance, I measured the lens with and without filters, at both close distance and infinity (since vignetting performance can vary greatly at different distances). To simulate a standard polarizing filter, I stacked two regular filters together, which ended up being very close to what my Singh-Ray Warming Polarizer is in terms of size. I did this because I wanted the lens to show falloff in a uniform manner for proper measurement and it was hard to achieve it with a polarizer. Here are the Imatest results:
Now this is pretty interesting data to look at. At close / minimum focus distance, vignetting levels are quite normal for a fast prime. However, at infinity, the corners of the lens can get pretty dark, surpassing 3 EV on average, which is rather high. At the same time, there are great news – mounting a standard profile polarizer will not make vignetting worse – note that the second set of the bars in the graph looks pretty darn close to the first. So you can safely use a standard profile polarizer on this lens and you don’t have to worry about introducing additional vignetting. The only time when the lens will vignette noticeably, is if you use a standard polarizing filter and stack more filters on top of it. Here is what the image will look like with a polarizer and a LEE Filter Holder (also standard size) mounted on top of the polarizer:
So keep this in mind when shooting in the field. If you really need to use a CPL together with a filter holder, my recommendation would be to get slim versions of both. Preferably, use a more versatile filter holder that allows mounting a larger polarizer, which will not add additional vignetting to your shots.
Here is the worst case scenario of vignetting performance at f/1.8 (at infinity mark, without filters), as illustrated by Imatest:
8) Ghosting and Flare
Like other pro-level lenses, the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G comes with high-end Nano coating (Nikon calls it Nano Crystal Coat), which means that the lens is built to handle ghosting and flare very well. Indeed, shooting against bright sources of light has very little effect on the overall image, as demonstrated below:
At the same time, if you put a bright source of light in a wrong spot, you might end up with some surprises:
The above example is perfectly normal – even the most expensive Nikkor lenses will show ghosting and flare in such situations. So be careful when framing your shot and watch out for those undesirable effects.
Please note that using UV and other filters can potentially introduce more flares and ghosting to your images.
9) Distortion
When it comes to distortion, the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED measured about the same amount of barrel distortion as both 24mm f/1.4G ED and 28mm f/1.8G ED lenses:
And if distortion bothers you, it is really easy to fix in post-processing. The latest version of Lightroom already has a built-in lens profile for the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED, so you can take care of it with a single click of your mouse.
10) Chromatic Aberration
Lateral chromatic aberration levels are pretty light, particularly at wider apertures when compared to both 24mm f/1.4G and 28mm f/1.8G lenses:
I would not worry about lateral chromatic aberrations though, since those can be easily fixed in Lightroom and Photoshop. As expected on fast aperture Nikkor prime lenses, there is a visible amount of longitudinal chromatic aberration present.
11) Coma
Although the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G is a great performer for astrophotography compared to other wide angle lenses, don’t be surprised to see stars render into odd shapes at the extreme corners of the frame when shooting at f/1.8, as shown below:
The good news is, stopping down the lens will improve the situation dramatically. As shown above, by f/2.8, points of light are rendered similarly as in the center, so stopping the lens down will certainly improve the situation.
12) Infrared Performance
The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G is a solid performer for infrared-converted cameras at large apertures. When stopped down to f/5.6 and smaller though, there is a visible hot spot in the center of the frame, as illustrated below (move the slider to see both):
Please keep in mind that the above images have been exaggerated to reveal the hot spot (I dialed -85 in Blacks in Lightroom). The effect is not extreme, but will be visible if you make contrast and black level adjustments.
13) Nikon 20mm f/1.8G ED vs Nikon 24mm f/1.4G ED
Let’s see how the 20mm f/1.8G ED performs when compared to the high-end 24mm f/1.4G ED:
Although the Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G starts out pretty weak at large apertures and might not yield top notch center performance, its overall performance is more balanced in comparison to the 20mm f/1.8G, especially when stopped down a bit. At the same time, when stopped down to f/5.6, both lenses perform very similarly, which shows just how good the 20mm f/1.8G is when compared to the much more expensive and heavier 24mm f/1.4G.
14) Nikon 20mm f/1.8G ED vs Nikon 28mm f/1.8G
Now let’s take a look at how the 20mm f/1.8G ED compares to the longer 28mm f/1.8G:
Again, it is pretty clear that the new 20mm f/1.8G ED outperforms the 28mm f/1.8G ED in center sharpness – its performance is better at all apertures, especially when stopped down to f/4. The same goes for mid-frame at large apertures, where the 20mm f/1.8G shows superior performance. However, the corners is where the 28mm f/1.8G is clearly better, giving superior performance at all apertures. One word of caution though – as I noted in my Nikon 28mm f/1.8G ED review, the 28mm lens suffers from both focus shift and field curvature issues, which can be somewhat painful to deal with. As you can see from the above chart, the 28mm f/1.8G lens shows better corner performance than mid-frame, which is an indication of wavy field curvature.
15) Nikon 20mm f/1.8G ED vs Zeiss 21mm f/2.8
The manual focus Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 has a similar focal length, but it is 1.3 stops slower. At the same time, the build quality of the Zeiss is top notch – a world better than on the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G. Let’s see how the two compare optically:
WARNING: The copy of the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 I had was pretty decentered, so the above figures for both mid-frame and corners might not reflect the full potential of the lens. I am planning to test another copy of the Zeiss and will update the below chart as soon as I can.
The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G is a much sharper lens than the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, particularly wide open. As you can see from the above chart, the Zeiss cannot match the performance of the Nikkor throughout the frame. Stopped down the performance differences diminish a little, but the Zeiss shows pretty noticeable field curvature and its overall performance is inconsistent. Again, this is based on a flawed sample of the lens – more testing on other samples will be required.
Overall, the 20mm f/1.8G ED shows excellent performance and Nikon definitely deserves high praises for developing such a great lens optically.
16) Summary
Lens after lens, Nikon has been replacing its classics with new generation lenses that are designed for yielding superb sharpness on the latest high-resolution sensors. The Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED might not have the heft or build quality of some of the Nikkor classics, but its overall performance, especially relative to its price tag, shows the direction that Nikon has been taking during the past few years in terms of delivering excellent value. As of now, Nikon has a solid stable of lenses for enthusiasts in its f/1.8 line: 20mm f/1.8G, 28mm f/1.8G, 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.8G and 85mm f/1.8G, all highly praised performers, even when compared to their more expensive f/1.4 counterparts. In my view, when you factor in performance vs price, these lenses are making the f/1.4 line seem like “specialty” offerings that are tailored for specific needs, rather than being the high-end tools desired by every Nikon camera owner.
For its $800 MSRP price tag, the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED as such represents tremendous value. As I have demonstrated in this review, the lens has very quick and accurate autofocus and excellent center sharpness when compared to 24mm and 28mm lenses, especially at maximum aperture. It handles chromatic aberrations, distortion, ghosting and flare very well and does not suffer from focus shift and wavy field curvature problems that other lenses are known to exhibit. Although extreme corners do show signs of problematic handling of coma at f/1.8, stopping down to f/2.8 or cropping the frame a bit make this lens a great choice for astrophotography needs (in fact, I am planning to use this lens for my astrophotography needs and I will update the review with more sample images as soon as I can). The lens also seems to be a good candidate for infrared photography, though one has to be careful when using small apertures – the lens does show hot spots starting from f/5.6. Its biggest drawbacks are weaker corner performance, excessive vignetting when shooting at infinity focus at wide apertures and a cheaper, more plasticky feel when compared to high-end Nikkor lenses.
Overall, I highly recommend the Nikor 20mm f/1.8G ED lens for both enthusiasts and professionals. It is a solid performer that nicely fills the 20mm “ultra wide angle prime” gap for many photographers.
17) Where to buy and availability
B&H is currently selling the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED lens for $796.95 (as of 12/28/2014).
18) More Image Samples
All Images Copyright © Nasim Mansurov, All Rights Reserved. Copying or reproduction is not permitted without written permission from the author.
Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED
- Optical Performance
- Features
- Bokeh Quality
- Build Quality
- Focus Speed and Accuracy
- Handling
- Value
- Size and Weight
Photography Life Overall Rating
Perfect review (as always). The lens look great indeed, but I will probably pass. I found that the following prime collection works the best for me:
Samyang 14/2.8 for ultra wide and astrophoto
Nikkor 28/1.8G for normal landscapes and general usage, environmental portrait, cityscapes, family, street …
Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8G for portrais and macro, product photography for eBay, etc.
So I have a little need for a 20mm lens.
BTW: Nasim, any chance for a review of Micro-Nikkor 60mm/2.8G? I think this is a little known gem in Nikon’s lineup and great (and more versatile) alternative to widely used 50/1.8G.
Mirek, thanks for your feedback! The 60mm f/2.8G macro has been sitting on my “to-do” plate for a while now. Definitely need to review it ASAP – planning to cover in the first half of 2015…
@Nasim
The 105 2.8 VR macro would be ncie as well /is missing too…;)
Keep it up!
All the best for you and your family and of course your seeked personal goals!
Yes, that’s another lens that I need to review. Interestingly, I have owned this lens the longest and never had a chance to review it!
I bought a used 60mm/2.8 macro for $200 (CDN) a couple of months ago. Looks like a really sharp lens. I only used it for a few closeup detail shots. I would love to see a full review and read the opinion of an experience reviewer like Nasim.
Great review
Thank you Jay, appreciate the feedback!
Nasim,
Very impressive work on lenses and camera reviews…I bought sigma 18-35mm f1.8 Art after seeing your review…and thank you for that. My colleague who just bought AF-S 20mm f1.8G and showed me the imatest chart done for this lens…Based on the chart the Sigma seems to be sharper at wide open than this lens at f4…What’s the difference between the charts? Seems to be a pretty sharp lens. Thanks again
Yes, great review, mine arrives today and I’m very excited to use it. I’m putting together an “as light as possible” D810 kit for a trip around the world in January. I am thinking of this lens, the sigma 50 art and the 28-300 to fill in the gaps. I’m shooting family shots, landscape and general tourist type stuff.
Thanks for the review
Matt
Matt, you will be very happy with how light and capable this lens is for your travel needs. The Sigma 50mm Art is also phenomenal – good luck with your trip!
We have a very similar setup – I too have a D810 with Sigma 50mm/1.4 (superb lens btw) and I just ordered the Nikkor 20mm/1.8. The reviews I’ve read so far are all positive, and I do need a wide-angle lens to capture interior architecture during my trip to Rome next month. Really excited about this.
And, Mr Mansurov, thank you for this review, it was among those that convinced me to choose this lens!
Thanks for the excellent review. I only really see two photos (same flower?) illustrating bokeh (which does look pretty busy to me). Given that your biggest ding for the lens is bokeh, I’d appreciate a few more examples (which, I know, violates an unstated tendency to only provide wonderful sample images) — including foreground out-of-focus elements.
Also — maybe some examples of how it handles flare perhaps.
Tonio, when you deal with aspherical lens elements, bokeh never renders very well, as I stated in the review. Still, out of focus areas do not look as bad as on some zooms, so it is not the end of the day. I will look and see if I can find more examples of bokeh, but seriously – why would you want to use a lens like this for bokeh? Unless you put the lens right next to a subject, getting things out of focus is extremely difficult. Remember, the infinity mark on the lens is a bit over 1 meter, so you have very little room to work with :)
As for examples of flare, I did provide two images under the ghosting and flare section. Flare is handled really well and the provided example is the worst case scenario…
Thanks for the reply.
A common use for wide angle lenses is to get really close to a subject and if you’re wide open you’ll get some bokeh whether you want it or not (per your flower shots) so it’s worth noting whether if it’s going to look decent. (I believe the lens focuses down to 5″ (125mm) and in the close-up shots I’ve seen the out-of-focus areas are really quite unattractive. (And the best way to really illustrate this would be to take photographs with out of focus point lights in the background.)
According to this rather detailed article on bokeh — http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html — onion rings are caused not so much by the shape of the lens but the grinding method (which is used to obtain the shape) so it’s possible that with sufficiently advanced/expensive grinding process, aspherical lenses could have nice bokeh. Progress is being made in this area, highlighted in this article (which appears to steal quite a bit from the first article): http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/05/02/the-end-of-onion-ring-bokeh-panasonic-beats-the-curse-of-aspheric-lenses
Given this is a new lens, it would be interesting to discover if NIkon had applied the new technology to the aspherical elements, but given how important it is, I imagine they’d invent an acronym for the improved aspherical elements and include it in a gold ring lens first.
Tonio, yes, that’s actually a very common way to use wide angle lenses. However, I am not sure if I agree with the “quite unattractive” comment – I think it looks OK. Not great by any means, but not bad either, as one can see on some lenses.
As for bokeh, aspherical lenses have always shown onion rings in my tests, which is why I have been saying that. But thank you for the links – that was an interesting read! Would be great if Nikon started to grind / mold their lenses differently, similar to what Panasonic has been doing. Sadly, that is not the case with the most recent Nikkor lenses (including the 20mm f/1.8G), so perhaps they will do that in the future…
Nasim,
Thanks for the review. It would be interesting to compare with the 18-35G at 20mm at equivalent F stops.
By the way, this puzzling sentence appears at the beginning of the review:
“Personally, I have been very interested in checking out the new 20mm f/1.8G lens, because I found the 28mm f/1.8G to be a bit too wide for my taste.”
Whoops, I was very sick when I wrote the intro, thanks for letting me know. The word was supposed to be “long”, not “wide”. Just fixed it!
can this lens be compared to the older versions? since the AFD version is still available and so is the ais. Ken Rockwell simply says there is no comparison. Do you agree Nasim?
Muhammad, cannot even compare this one to the older versions – it easily beats them optically. I fully agree with Ken Rockwell on this one…
Hello Muhammad, I would recommend you to stay away from K. Rockwell suggestions, his views are way too simplistic and he is wrong more than right. Who buys a D810 to exclusively shoot JPG basic?
There are people, such as myself, who buy Nikon DSLRs because we often have a requirement to deliver JPEGs to the client at the end of the shooting session: post-processing is not an option. The extensive range of adjustments provided by Nikon’s in-camera Picture Controls enable the photographer to tailor their images to the requirements of the client.
The D810 includes a “Clarity” adjustment that is absent from my existing bodies therefore this added feature alone made me strongly tempted to purchase a D810 for shooting JPEGs. After very careful consideration, I chose a body that lacks this feature due to its overall performance suitability (for reasons that I’m not prepared to discuss).
JPEG basic is far more than good enough quality for clients to crop/resize the images for display on their website and large-screen HDTVs (even 4k) public displays. I usually deliver JPEG fine because some clients subsequently decide to produce poster prints for displaying to the public.
For some of my other work, I shoot JPEG + RAW.
There are very good reasons why the D810, like other cameras, has a setting to record only JPEGs, jstevez. The use of this setting does not lead to the conclusion that the photographer is a simplistic ass who’s opinions are best avoided.
Thanks for the review. How would the Zeiss 21mm compare to this? I’m thinking on pure sharpness and micro contrast, the Zeiss would be better, but maybe only marginally so. I read some people see a very slight dip in sharpness on this 20mm midway out (about where the DX edge would be). Did you notice that? I think the Nikon would win on handling flare (and obviously weight and cost). But I like the heavier stronger build of Zeiss. Still making up my mind…
Dave
Dave, interestingly, I had the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 with me at the time I was testing the 20mm f/1.8G. Since mine came de-centered, I did not use it as much – will need to obtain another copy of the lens to do a full review. But I am currently putting the Imatest results from the lab, so you can see how the sharpness compares. Please note that the corners might not show as good as they should. I will update the results once I have a good copy later next year.
The Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 is a great lens. It has better colors in my opinion, but microcontrast and sharpness are not better. Plus, you are comparing f/1.8 vs f/2.8 and AF vs MF, so the Nikkor is a stronger choice in those aspects. Zeiss is a much better build and will last forever, compared to the plastic build of the 20mm f/1.8G. Both have their strengths and weaknesses…
Yes, there is a slight dip in sharpness on the 20mm on DX, but it is something you can see in my Imatest results – mid-frame is where approximately DX corners are, so you can see those drops there indeed.
Thank you Nasim for a great review. Could you please explain “Since mine came de-centered, I did not use…”. How does a lens get ‘de-centered’? I mean, by looking at a lens, is it possible to see the de-centering?
Rohinton, sadly, de-centering is fairly common. It can happen when a lens is dropped (during transportation), or sometimes it is just built that way. Usually Zeiss lenses are very good in build quality, so this de-centering I saw was pretty surprising to me…
As for testing for de-centering, it can be done if you want to test, but I would not recommend it. If you go crazy about it, you might suddenly dislike most of the lenses you have, since many lenses suffer from it – some worse than others. While you might not notice it in your images, even slight decentering is bad for providing test data, because it does not reflect the full potential of a lens. When I provide test data, I measure all 4 corners and give an average figure. If only one corner is weaker, it is not bad, but if two corners are bad due to decentering, then the data is inaccurate (that’s what happened with the Zeiss 21mm). I wrote about decentering here: https://photographylife.com/what-is-a-decentered-lens
Dave, just updated the review with the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 MTF data. Again, please keep in mind that the data might not reflect potential performance of the lens – mine was badly decentered.
Thanks Nasim. Wow, I’m surprised if the less expensive Nikon has noticably sharper corners than the Zeiss costing twice as much… I did not expect that from what I had read elsewhere. So please do try to update the Zeiss 21 test results someday, when you can. I did hear that the Zeiss has some interesting behavior related to field curvature and you need to be a little careful with it for that reason. The lack of autofocus and the loss of ~1 stop of speed wide open doesn’t bother me that much. I’m looking for a lens mostly for landscapes on full frame (probably a D750), stopped down to f/5.6 – f/11, especially when I want to capture lots of depth with foreground elements and the distance both in focus.
Yes, that’s why I wanted to re-test the Zeiss, since I had a hard time believing that it would yield such figures. I do trust the center data, but mid-frame and corners do look weaker than they should, since that lens has been praised for its performance. At the same time, you are right about field curvature problems – I did see that during my testing too, but I did not want to draw any conclusions based on the sample problems. Will try to update as soon as I can.
Hello Nasim,
An excellent and detailed review. Very nice sample photographs,too. Thank you!
Like many of my fellow photographers out there, I *love* wide angle lenses, in particular the 20 mm and 28 mm focal lengths in the 35 mm format. I use other lenses with a 75-100 degree angle of view in other formats, too. As you nicely point out, Nasim, these lenses
are instrumental, versatile, and enjoyable tools for many applications in photography.
I would like to point out to your readers that if you prefer manual focus wide angle primes, then Nikon has excellent and more affordable
alternatives. Among the many older offerings that are available, I highly recommend both the Nikkor 20 mm f/2.8 Ais and 28 mm f/2.8 Ais. Both are compact, light weight, made of metal, have excellent manual focus ergonomics, and are very sharp, in particular the latter. I own both of these lenses, which have yielded some great photographs over the years. These lenses are available both new and used.
The 20 mm f/2.8 Ais can be had for $649 new and anywhere from $300-500 used. The 28 mm f/2.8 Ais can be had for $499.95 new and $300-350 used.
For those photographers who *really* love wide angle manual focus lenses in an even more compact package, the older 20 mm f/4 Ais is a bargain – provided that you can find it. It’s a (relatively) rare lens on the used market. The caveat with this lens is that it’s nowhere near the performer wide open (at f4, that is) compared to Nikon’s other 20 mm primes; yet stopped down to F8, these lenses are comparable in optical performance. I own this lens (purchased under $200 after a couple of months of searching on-line); it’s a great little lens. Small. Fits in your shirt pocket. Quality build. And super light. A photographer on a budget cannot go wrong with any of these choices. :-)
As a bonus, for those photographers out there who enjoy IR photography (both film and digital), the above manual focus wide angle primes all have IR focus index dots on the focus scales! In addition, the DOF scales are professionally engraved into the metal lens barrel and color-coded.
I have not owned or used the AFD versions of any of these wide angle lenses, so I cannot comment on their value. Honestly though, all of these lenses (new and old, manual focus, AF) are excellent.
And Nasim, I would also kindly point out that these G lenses are fully compatible with Nikon’s advanced film SLRs (e.g., F100, F4, F6) in
addition to digital SLRs. I have used my 24 mm f/1.4 G on my F6, which makes superb photographs with this lens, although
it is a monster carry around. ;-)
Great work, as always!
– Rick
Rick, thank you for the detailed and excellent comment. I agree, many of the old lenses are of great value and they do really well, even on modern high-resolution sensors. As soon as I am done with my current to-do list, I am planning to resume reviewing old Nikkor glass. Some of our readers were very kind to send me old MF lenses last year for testing and I am hoping to get more this year to review!
Nasim,
Great review. I am considering this lens for astro photography. I currently use my 16-35mm f/4 or 28mm f/2.8 but having a f/1.8 lens opens up new possibilities.
You wrote: I agree, many of the old lenses are of great value… …I am planning to resume reviewing old Nikkor
glass…
This is a great project—Thank you.
I am interested in a review of the Nikon 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S zoom lens with comparisons to the modern 70-200 f/4. While both lenses are sharp, there may be other, subtle differences that would make me consider upgrading.
Hi Nasim,
Another great review! If I were shooting FX, I am pretty sure this would replace the 24mm 1.4.
I also loved your recommended lens list but it is aimed at FX, not DX.
For DX, it is not on my list. In the last 18 months I have changed everything. I let go of the Nikkor 24mm 1.4, 35 1.4 and 50 1.4, 24-70 2.8 and just recently the 70-200 2.8. I replaced these lenses with the following:
Tokina 11-16 (just got it, haven’t used it yet)
Sigma 18-35 1.8
Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art
Nikon 70-200 F4
Sigma 17-70 F2.8 – 4.0 (this replaced the superior but much heavier 24-70 as an everyday walk around lens)
IMO the Sigma 18-35mm was practically indistinguishable from the Nikkor primes and allowed me to carry one less lens.
Obviously, I was trying to get lighter (the glaring exception being the 50mm Art which I find irresistable…)
How do you like this list for DX?
Sceptical, here is my take on the DX lens choices:
Tokina 11-16 – excellent choice. A great and very sharp lens!
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 – can’t say enough good things about it, it is a game changer
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art – you have seen my review :)
Nikon 70-200mm f/4 – superb, very lightweight choice and works very well on both FX and DX
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0 – never used it before, so I cannot comment yet
Overall, that’s quite a list sir, you definitely know what you are doing!
Nasim,
Thanks for a great review. I have learned so much from this site. I have a 16-35 F4 and understand that as you said these zooms are quite a bit heavier and more expensive than the 20mm prime. Based on this review, I have removed the 24mm 1.4 from my consideration (expense wise in particular). In your experience, how does this new lens compare sharpness wise with the 16-35? I realize that the zoom is 2 stops slower, and value your thoughts on this subject.
Paul, I don’t think it is fare to compare the 16-35mm to the 20mm f/1.8G – they are optically very different (planning to update the review with comparisons to the 16-35mm soon). The 20mm f/1.8G is far better, there is just no comparison. At the same time, the 16-35mm gives a lot of convenience and versatility thanks to its zoom range, so it comes down to what you shoot. If you don’t mind losing 4mm of coverage and moving with your feet, then you will be very happy with the 20mm performance…
I use D800’s and a d3s and I find I spend a lot of my time down at the wide end of things, the very area that manufacturers have great difficulty in making good lenses for. I have painstakingly been putting together a range of lenses that complement the possibilities of the D800 and it has been no easy task and I was down to needing the one remaining lens around this focal length and after seeing the specs, I got lucky and got one of the very few in the country. I was floored by its performance, its absolutely exceptional even wide open. Its hard to believe that it performs as well as it does, but its right up there with the very best with very little difference between wide open to its sharpest aperture.
Thank you for your mini-review Pete and glad to see that you agree with me – that 20mm f/1.8G ED is a gem!
Well Nasim, I owe you quite a bit, I have relied on your advice in many areas since I decided to get back into photography. I like your reviews as they seem to be spot on and not coloured by prejudices. I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for all the hard work you put in and it really has made a difference and is very much appreciated!
Nasim, Very good review. I expect some comparison between 16-35 F4, 14-24 F2.8 @ 20mm.
Hope you D750 is not prone to flare issue, Photos against sun is nicely handled by this lens.
The D750 flare “issue” only applies to the sun when it is just out of the frame. Inside the frame is no issue and moving slightly fixes it entirely when it’s out of the frame.
Arun, I will do my best to update this review with some comparisons against the common UWA zoom lenses soon. Both of the D750 units I tested were prone to the flare issue, but as I have stated in a separate article, you will rarely ever see the problem – it only happens at a particular angle.
I’ve been wanting this lens and this reivew is ‘pushy’ enough for me to go for it! Thanks for the reivew!
You are most welcome Ravi! You won’t be disappointed!
Hi Nasim, thanks for the review that I’m sure many people out there was waiting like myself! Also, like other users, I am also interested in comparing 20mm f/1.8 to Nikon 16-35 f/4 (on Fx cameras). I was wondering what are the pros and cons of each – regardless of price. Please share your thoughts.
Ansh, as soon as I get back, I will have a look at both 16-35mm and 18-35mm data and see if I have any data for 20mm focal length. If I don’t, then I will update the review anyway, with comparisons at closer focal lengths (18mm and 24mm perhaps?). In the meantime, if I do get a hold of these lenses soon, I will try to run another comparison at 20mm. I have not updated older reviews with the most current data, so please do not compare values from this review with old ones yet. I am planning to update all the reviews within the next few weeks with high resolution image samples + most current Imatest data…
Had been deliberating for almost 3 months and read extensively(14-24mm f/2.8 right through to the recently debuted Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC) over the net; ultimately decided on the 20mm f/1.8G ED, got it last evening (07-02-2015). The thing that tipped the balance in it’s favor was the wider aperture and the light weight of having a prime as compared the zooms. It’s very light.
Thanks Nasim, great review with an excellent balance talking about between field and lab performance. I have one of these on my wish-list. Just need to decide whether to sell my 28mm f1.8 which I really enjoy using and replace it with the 35mm f1.8, an arrangement which would be cash flow neutral, as a better companion to the 20mm. Ideally I would then replace the 50mm f1.8 with the 58mm f1.4, but that’s a pretty negative hit to the bank balance.
Bruce, personally, I would go with a 20mm + 35mm f/1.8 instead of a single 28mm for the reasons stated in the review. I am not sure if you would be very happy with the 58mm f/1.4G though – that lens is not for everyone, as it is not about sharpness (it was designed that way). You can read up about the 58mm f/1.4G here at PL – I wrote a review a while ago. Just don’t compare sharpness figures yet, as I will be updating those with the current data pretty soon.
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for another great review, and accompanying photos. I had been waiting for you to review this lens, as it was on my list to acquire after it was introduced. I read Bob Vishneski’s “Initial Impressions” article on the lens, and as I said, was waiting for your full review. I actually decided to purchase this lens about 2 weeks ago, and although I have not yet had the opportunity to use it that much since receiving it, I am genuinely impressed with its performance to date. I also own the Nikon 50mm 1.8G which I am quite pleased with, the Sigma 35mm ART which is an incredibly awesome lens, the Nikon 24-120mm F4G and a ultra-wide Rokinon 14mm 2.8 lens with my D800.
Are you planning on reviewing the new Sigma 150-600mm Sport or contemporary lenses, and possibly do a comparison to the Tamron 150-600?
I look forward to more great gear reviews and articles from PL on all aspects of photography, and I am sure 2015 will not disappoint. Happy New Year!
Vinnie
Vinnie, that’s a pretty impressive list of lenses you got there! Would love to hear your thoughts on the 20mm f/1.8G after you use it.
Yes, I am planning to review the Sigma 150-600mm as soon as possible. I have a few projects to finish first though. I have all the test data for the Tamron 150-600mm, so I will be updating that review fairly soon too.
Happy New Year and thank you for your wishes!
Thank you Nasim great review. However what really surprises me the optical performance of the 20/1.8 c/w the 24/1.4, 28/1.8, Zeiss 21! Have the 24, 28 in question as well as the 14-24 and 18-35G so I was going to pass on this new 20 but if this performance is indeed true I may have to reconsider.
John, the 20mm f/1.8G is a very sharp lens optically. I was pretty surprised to see that it was sharper than many other UWA lenses I have tested so far myself – great value given the price. If you have a chance, rent it for a couple of days and you will see what I mean.
Nasim,
It seems like if I compare the MTF numbers from your Nikon 18-35 review (at 18mm, f5.6-f8), to this 20mm at either f5.6-f8, I see significantly better numbers from the 18-35 (at 18mm). Were both tested with the same body? Thanks.
Yes, both were tested with the same body. However, my lens procedure did change as I have written in several articles and reviews in the past – instead of using Lightroom for processing RAW files, I am now doing everything with DCRaw (which is a far better choice, since it does not apply any corrections or sharpening). This resulted in a change in numbers, which is why the 18-35mm has higher numbers than here. I apologize for this temporary inconvenience – I am planning to update all existing reviews with DCRaw data within the next few weeks.
Hi Nasim,
DCRaw that you mention above, is that the open source program released around 2000, or another program? Are you using another program such as Raw Therapee, ACDSee, something else,or dcraw open source to process photos? Are you not using Lightroom at all anymore, or using it in combination with dcraw to process raw images, or just doing specific bits of your processing in Lightroom? I am just curious about what other software is out there, and have been reading and checking at DxO Optics Pro 10. I saw in another post, you said you were going to be doing a review of that as well, so waiting to see what you think of it.
Vincent, yes, I am using that same DCRaw :) Please note that I do not use it as a converter for my images – I only use DCRaw for pure Imatest analysis. For everything else, I use Lightroom for now, but planning to cover other software soon…
Thank you for a great review. I was worried that this lens would have the same issues with focus shift and field curvature as the 28 mm f1.8. Relieved that I don’t have to worry about that.
Regarding the vignetting; I looked through the sample images, but I didn’t notice any issues. Have the images been corrected with Lightroom’s lens profile? I thought a 3 ev drop in the corners would be pretty obvious.
Pehr, if you look at the vignetting page where I show how the light falls off in an image, you will see that the falloff is very gradual, so it is not bad. I usually don’t apply mass-vignetting corrections in Lightroom, because Adobe does a pretty poor job sometimes. Some images do look pretty even and that’s the result of cropping rather than Lightroom corrections…
Thanks for the review Nasim. I’ve been toying around whether to get this or not since I sold my 14-24 a few months ago. Now I decided to order it from Amazon.de where it had the lowest euro price I’ve seen so far.
One thing though: you say that the lens is weather sealed. The phoblographer claims it doesn’t. Only either one of you can have it correct…
Matti, I never said that the lens is weather sealed – I only said that there is a rubber gasket that provides protection against dust. The lens itself is not weather sealed. In fact, none of the modern Nikon primes are weather sealed…
Ok, thanks. That clarifies it.
Many thanks for the review. An important comparison would be with the old 20mm F2.8 AF. I have one and it would be interesting to know if it’s worth upgrading (I use it on a D800).
If you are reasonably happy with the results from your 20 mm f/2.8 AF then I feel that you could regret spending money on an upgrade. I have the manual focus version of this lens and it has produced some really good images: it’s not bitingly sharp at f/2.8, but for my purposes this is a non-issue.
Everyone has different requirements. I prefer to spend my limited budget on adding items that increases the flexibility of my kit, rather than on improving the performance of individual items in my existing kit.
Peter, if you have ~$500-600 to spend, and do a lot of astrophotography then I say go for it (difference between selling your 20 f/2.8D and buying the 20 f/1.8G). Last July I did a time lapse shoot for the Science channel and used their 20mm f/2.8D, the coma was so bad I had to crop it out. of the final scene. This version is just so much better and is now my favorite astrophotography lens.
Hi Nasim,
This is my first comment, but i have been reading your reviews for more that a year now.
Thanks to you i have bought the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8g that i enjoy a lot.
Regarding this review, i was anxious because i want to purchase a wide angle for my kit but i needed a very good review that i could trust.
Thank You and keep up the good work!
Thank you for this great review! Honestly, I’m now waiting for a Zeiss 21 review too! F/2.8 or MF don’t disturb me, but dxo rated it a bit lesser than the old Nikkor 20 2.8 D, what I find astonishing for this famous lens. How can this be understood?
Answering a question in the comments you wrote ‘The Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 is a great lens. It has better colors in my opinion, but microcontrast and sharpness are not better.’ Could you please explain, in which way the colors obtained by the Zeiss are better? Could postprocessing/LR eliminate the difference? Thank you for your comments!
Paul, colors are better because it is better glass. German glass is outstanding and has neutral color, while other glass always has some sort of a tint…
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for the review! Regarding the shot demonstrating vignetting when using Lee filter holder, was there just one round filter on the lens or were there two? My understanding is that there was only one round filter plus the Lee holder; please correct me if I’m wrong. My usual set-up when shooting landscapes is lens > round ND filter > Cokin Z-Pro filter ring and holder > Lee GND. I’m eager to test how much vignetting this configuration will produce on the 20mm 1.8G but it is not available in any store where I live. Thanks so much!
-Oliver
Thanks for all your review, Nasim!
Does the 24mm/1.4 has a better weather sealing than the 20mm/1.8?
Many thanks for your reply!
Nasim, many thanks for detailed review! How would you compare
this with 16-35/f4 in terms of IQ at f4 to 8 ? I use D800 and I am wondering
whether switching to Nikkor 20/1.8 and Sigma 35/1.4 would improve IQ. I use
20mm mostly architecture and 35 for reportage and (less often) for portraits.
Thanks for the review and for helping me make up my mind to go for this lens. I’d had this lens in my mind even before I came upon your wonderful website and reivews.
Thank you for the excellent review Nisam. I bought the 20mm f/1.8 today and took it out at sunset for its first light on my D810. First impressions are that its a very good lens. Sharp, fast auto focus, and easy manual focus. It produces big clean sun stars! Looking forward to some astrophotography with it.
Any luck with astrophotography ?
If one already have 24mm 1.4g does it make sense to get this one for little more extra wide angle?
Thank you
I’m thinking of this lens or the Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 for astro photography, any thoughts on which might be better, on a D810 body. Thx
Nasim,
Thanks for another excellent review. I’ve had the 14-24 for a few years and am happy with it, but am considering this lens for it’s portability. I don’t travel by air with the 14-24 often, it’s size and weight with the Fotodiox filter system don’t lend itself to compactness. I am curious how this 20mm compares with the 14-24 at 20mm, I’ve seen some subjective reports that suggest it’s better but nothing as detailed as your reviews.
I saw in one of your replies you mentioned the Tamron 150-600 update is coming – I’ll thank you in advance for that one, looking forward to it.
Is a 24mm 1.8g coming?
Nasim, can you reveal a bit about your photographing technique? How do you get the main subjects in the party shots at night so incredibly sharp at very short shutter speeds?
Hello Nasim, I am looking into getting a D750 and a 20mm prime so I found this review extremely helpful. I was wondering if you could tell me more about the setup for one of the images in the sample images. The image with the female in maroon dress and male in striped shirt holding a beer on dance floor. I really like this look and wondering if you had on camera flash with some sort of diffusion or was it off camera on edge of dance floor? I am assuming there is flash bc there appears to be a catch light in the eyes.
Thank you for all of your post, they are by far the best compared to others online.
Some shots with this lens from my recent trip to Singapore.
Hello Nasim,
Great review as always and I found it most valuable for me compared with others sites.
I almost pull stringer for this lens until I read your review of Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 VC. Now I’m torn between these 2 lenses and can I have your suggestion for this, with my photography is travel and landscape and my gears are D750 + Nik 24-120 f/4 + 35 f/1.8 G + 85 f/1.8 G
Thanks for your post
Comparation ought to be done apple-to-apple.
I wanna save some cents, so wanna hear from u
how’s the performance of Sigma 20mm f1.8 against the Nikon 20mm f1.8 ??
BIG THANKS in adv. Nasim.
Great review!
I use the Nikkor 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses for most versatility at events. Not needed much by way of UWA zoom capability up to now so passed on the 14-24. In terms of primes (which I use mostly on the second body for indoors at events and for food) I use the Nikon 50mm and 35 mm 1.8g and the Micro 105 2.8. Have pondered switching the 50mm out for a Sigma Art and may, at some stage add the Nikon 85mm 1.8. Trouble is, I can’t find much of a use for it at the moment so it’s been on hold.
I dabble somewhat in landscape work now (mostly with the 24-70) and at times it’s useful to have wider than 24 and also the 1.8 aperture for indoor low light. So I’ve been swaying back and forth between the 20, 24 and 28 focal lengths. Having the 35mm the 28 maybe doesn’t bring enough to the game. This 20mm though really appeals :)
Great review,thanks for your effort in writing it,I’m planning to buy this lens before Christmas,2015.
I was pondering over buying a 24mm f/1.4 or 20mm f/1.4 Sigma Art lens and I then I saw this article. I really want to go for the 20mm, but I will not be able to protect the front element. Are there any suggestions on what I can do?
That was a really excellent review.
I ve a question. Since I dont have a full frame camera, will this lense work well on my d7200 as a 30mm wide lense?
Hi Nassim,
Yet another very interesting and (wide)eye opening article :-)
But it leaves me with a question as I am looking to expand my actual lens set-up.
I work with my beloved D7100 which I bought a few months ago along with a kit lens 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR.
Although – as an enthusiast amateur – I am quiet satisfied with this versatile all-round lens, I start to experience the need to explore further. I feel limited with what I want to achieve in my photography (landscape, architecture etc).
Since my D7100 is DX, I was extremely interested in this 20mm f/1.8G ED to get a better prime wide angle.
In addition, if I am to invest in lenses, it might as well be in FX lenses for a potential future shift to FX camera.
But then in my search for the “perfect” purchase, I came across the Nikkor AF-S 12-24mm F4.0 G IF-ED DX.
This also caught my eye, as it was reviewed as a very good lens built especially for DX cameras.
Although not an FX lens, it looks more of a professional lens with its fixed aperture. (and price!)
Have you ever reviewed this lens?
I was wondering if you could provide me with some insight and advice with this “dilemma” of purchasing a new lens?
Or maybe, my search is not broad enough and you might have any other suggestion as wide angle for landscape and city architecture to be used on D7100?
Thanks in advance,
Christian
Christian, I once owned a 12-24mm lens. It is not a bad lens, but it is DX. With your potential future move to FX, you will have to deal with selling that lens. I will be honest with you, I really don’t have much faith in DX. Unless Nikon figures out a way to make DX mirrorless, I would not invest in DX glass at this point. You will lose quite a bit in the long term by trying to do that. You know you will be moving up to FX, so why invest so heavily in something you will be getting rid of? I would stick with FX glass when possible, however, there is one problem – there is currently no FX glass that covers the same equivalent range as 12-24mm. The 14-24mm is big, heavy and expensive! My suggestion would be to temporarily invest in something much cheaper – get the Tokina 11-16mm. At $450 right now, it is a lens with phenomenal value. And the Tokina will resale at least for $200-300 later on, so you won’t lose as much as you would lose on the 12-24mm.
Hope this helps!
Hi Nasim,
Thanks a bunch for your valuable feedback, very much appreciated!
Your suggestion and advice is very clear, it puts things in a new very helpful perspective.
I’ll keep you posted!
All the best,
Christian
Hi Nasim,
Excellent review as always!
Will you have a chance to redo the test with a different copy of the Zeiss Distagon?
Thank you!
HI Nasim,
great review, thanks for taking the the time to do it. I am in the market for a wide angle, i have narrowed the search down to the nikon 20mm 1.8G, nikon 18-35 3.5-4.5G and the sigma 18-35 1.8 art. They all around the same price point. My struggle is that i need the wide end for landscapes and cityscapes but i need it to also double as all around walking/tourist lens. Heading to Paris in a few weeks and space and weight is a factor. They all have great reviews but i am not sure the nikon 20 would work as a walkabout/street lens, while the nikon 18-35 is rated high not sure about the 3.5-4.5 aspect. I like the option of really shallow DOF on the fixed ones. As for the sigma i included it after reading your review.
Also i shoot with nikon d700(got it at a really great deal under $500 with less that 1500 shots).
Please let me know your thoughts. I would really appreciate it.
Cheers
Lujah
hi Lujah,
I am in same boat as you were in March. I am looking to get a wide angle lens and currently debating 24mm f1.8 and 16-35mm f4. I am very interested in knowing how you decided and which lens you finally went for.
Cheers
Thanks for reviewing Nikons wide angle primes at f/1.8. I see that you gave a rating of 4.3 for 20mm f/1.8 and 4.7 for 24mm f/1.8. You also say that 20mm f/1.8 is a gem. Which of these do you recommend for buying? I shoot Nikon D7000 and have Nikkors 50mm f/1.8G; 18-105mm f3.5-5.6; 70-300mm f4-5.6 and 200mm f4 AI. I recently bought a Nikon D700 and am trying to add a wide angle lens to my existing lenses. Thanks in advance.
Dear Nasim, First I’d like to thank you for your great review,
I’m one of your fans, I read all you review about Digital camera and lens,
The most part which I’m interesting in while I reading your review is the photo that you capture
that is your secret , recipe , the way that you process the photo by LightRoom.
I’m thinking to buy DSLR camera from Nikon and lens, to get a great image sharpness I need good lens
I’m thinking in D5500 for my budget and the rest of money for lens
the problem in crop factor camera is the focal length will be multiplying by 1.5 so there is no real 28mm or 35mm lens on APSc camera from Nikon, After Two years of search I find the best solution is to use 20mm or 24mm FX lens like
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.8G ED Lens
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED
These Two lenses will give me focal length 30mm and 36mm , I don’t care about the 6mm difference between them
you make a review for both , and now I want to ask you and take your opinion to choice between them
which one of these lenses will be the sharpest on Nikon D5500 and has less problem like ghosting and flaring, Chromatic Absorption
I find that you rate 24mm 1.8 5 Start optical performance while 20mm not,why?
also i have no problem if I add 200$ extra to my budget there will be
Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Nikon F
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Nikon F
so will these lens be sharper that Nikon lenses or not?
I’m thinking to rent these lenses from website and make the compare to decide but this will cost me about 200$ for All Four lenses, but before I do that I decide to ask you.
Kind Regards
Haider from IRAQ
Hi Nasim,
Many thanks for the review and all you hard work you put into them.
Today I went in my local photographic shop to look at the Nikon 20mm lens with a view to buying one, principally for astro photography. While there I was also shown the Sigma 20mm Art f1.4 lens that seems to be a vey solid piece of kit, especially as the Nikon is very much more plastiky and light in comparison. Results wise how do they compare? is one noticeably better than the other?
Many thanks,
Bernard.
Nasim,
Question for you — I bought this lens hoping to grab some great low-light photobooth shots (and then later use it for night cityscapes and landscapes) however the consistence of the shots at the corers came out horrible on my D750. If you, or anyone on here doesnt mind taking a look I posted them on Flickr under christopher.jeffry #christorita – https://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherjeffry/albums
Most are cropped down from 20mm. User error? Any suggestions are appreciated – did I get bad glass? Something else?
Thank you for this informative article. Maybe you could help me out a little bit?
In fact, I bought the 20mm f1.8 as a future investment 2 years ago and up until now used in on a DX body.
Since I plan switching to full-frame very soon, I wonder which lens might be better suited for me: The 24-70mm or the 14-24mm. I will definitely get the 50mm f1.4 plus I already own the 70-200mm f4.
I often find myself in small Japanese gardens and interiors, but I also do lots of landscape (especially in the mountains, at lakes, etc.). Since both are quite expensive lenses, I wonder what makes more sense. The extra-wide angle of the 14mm I find myself missing quite a few times with my current (DX 16-85mm, being roughly 24-105mm) standard lens or the more “standard” 24-70mm.
Good day,
First of all, I’d like to say thank you for the informative website. it is probably my favorite site for reviews. I do however have one question/concern with regards to the IMATEST graphs.
I was trying to find out how the test works exactly and after following a few of your links and an interview you did with the IMATEST founder, it seems to me that the test results are not necessarily lens specific but it is a combination of the lenbs and the body that it was on at the time, as well as the photo that was taken.
I have noticed on your website that you have multiple results for the same lens. I believe it was the Nikon 50mm f1.8. you showed one result in a review and a second result in a comparison against the f1.4. I think this is probably because each test was done on a different camera.
If this is the case, then how can we take these results into consideration? in most of the articles you do not note which body the lens was matched to for the test.
If what I am saying is correct then the only way to compare the lens exactly would be to (for example), get a Nikon d750 with all of Nikons prime lenses and have them that same day same lighting conditions, same photo composition, and same settings. You would have to compare those results. If you are taking a photo with a d600 and a 20mm f1.8, and comparing it to a photo taken by a d810 with a 24mm f1.8, how can you say that the 24mm is sharper? it is being used with a different body and probably taking a different image on a different day.
I am writing this email because I am trying to consider which lens to buy next, and while I appreciate your detailed reviews, I can’t help but wonder if I should even be comparing the graphs to each other with the possibilities that they are not correct or would show different results if compared on the same body, same image etc…..
if I am wrong, can you please let me know!
Your time is much appreciated,
Nick
Hello Nasim,
Congrats for your very helpful website and thank you too for your nice reviews. I would like to ask you a question. I’m looking for a wide angle to start in night sky landscape photography and i hesitate between AF-S 20mm F1.8 and AF-S 24mm F1.8 (my DSLR body is a D750). According to you, which of both would be the best choice? Thank you in advance. Best regards from France!