My new baby... got it used for a price I couldnt resist. Faded markings on the barrel, but glass is apparently good.

Anybody have experience with this lens? How do you like it? Is focusing speed ok? Do you need a hood? What hood do you use? Any other observations/warnings?

My initial concerns are:
1. I have the 18-70DX, wch at 18mm is 3.5. So, all i got was half a stop. Is it worth using for the half stop advantage?
2. Aside from the compact size of a prime, what else do i get vs the kit zooms? Is image quality that much better to justify using it?
3. Its non D. I understand D is passing distance info to the camera, which is generaly used for flash photography. I have also heard that matrix metering does not work as well with non D's. True or false?

I havent seen or held it yet... I had pics sent via email and a friend (who shoots leica) checked the unit for me. I trusted the sample photos and my leica friend's judgement and got it na. I should get it by the end of the week. Will give feedback by then.

I have been wishing for a 35/2, for the days I want to go ultralight with my D50.... but this coming way way seems to be an ok deal, esp given the price. (P5.5k) It should kill my 35/2 lust hehe. I hope I like the focal length and get to use it a lot.

No matter how good a zoom lens is, it will never beat a prime in terms of sharpness.

The Distance chip is important only when usind 3D matrix metering in flash mode.

lol ken... those same words were also running thru my head when I was making up my mind on whether or not to buy it.

Well I guess time will tell if this lens finds enough mount-time.

I finally got this lens and was able to take a few test shots.

Outdoors it simply rocked. This lens will make a great landscape lens.

Indoors was another story... It had a tendency to flare easily in backlit and even sidelit situations. Maybe it was because it was too wide, and those light sources kept getting into the frame.

Overall, compared to my other wide, the 18mm end of the 18-70, the 20/2.8 showed better colors and saturation. As for sharpness, I couldnt really tell, I feel the 20 has a slight edge, but not that significant to a non pixel peeper like me.The 18-70 (with hood installed) controlled flare better though.

I found that shooting indoors with a wide prime is a bit difficult. You cant zoom in to eliminate stray light. Maybe if I get a lenshood for it things may improve...

Is flare a general issue with wide angle lenses indoors? Or is it an issue with this particular lens/copy?

@carlo

please post some images...

Hello Carlo,

Could you post the pics that shows the flares? I have the same lens now, and I didn't have issues with it (although I have the "D" version, but optically, I read its the same).

I would discourage you from using the "cheap taiwan hoods" they sell right now (its the one that you have to screw-in). Its vignetting from open-wide to f5.6.

Do you have a filter on it? Non multi coated filters tend to exagerrate flares.

@melvin: what hood do you use? I understand the standard recommended hood is for film, not digital and there might be a better option than the HB-4

@ken: It came with a generic uv filter wch i removed.

@dindin: Samples... (no hood, no pp, shot in jpeg straight out of the camera)

Flarey?
http://static.flickr.com/116/301698789_b82002b684.jpg

Comparison:
20mm/2.8:
http://static.flickr.com/109/301699034_5d4fd34bc1.jpg

18-70 @18 (with hood)
http://static.flickr.com/114/301699523_311f13ec84.jpg

I know this is a bad pic, and I was simply askng for flare by shooting into the window.. but you can definitely see the difference in terms of how both lenses handle flare on the upper right side of the pic.

If and when I manage to keep stray light sources out of the frame... it is nicer:

quickie landscape:
http://static.flickr.com/111/301699348_7d258ec209.jpg


Anyway, in general, I think I've figured out that when armed with a wide lens... you really have to take note of the edges of the frame. What I'm just curious about is if the lens I got is performing up to spec... esp since its used.

Thank guys

BTW... sorry abt the links only... i couldnt figure out how to display pics from picasaweb... its somehow different from flickr hehe.

I just bought the cheap screw-in filter from Hidalgo. Its non-Nikon brand, very generic. Bad buy! I never tried the Nikon hoods, but that might be compatible with the 20mm prime.

I use mine without filter most of time (although, sometimes I would use my B+W polarizer which is very good for me).

You have a comparison between 18-70 there (which for some reason, I can't access due to the firewalls here in the office). Anyway, from my end, I never liked the 18-70. I love my primes (20mm and 24mm, for 35 above I use my 35-70 F2.8). And found the primes far superior to the kit lens (the difference is quite delightful).

Could you do this test:
- Go to a window with the sun shining outside, but not visible thru the window
- the room should be kept really dark, the window on the other hand should have some glass.
- Take a picture of the scene outside the window, and try to overexpose it a bit.

If there are flare spots, then its obviously flaring. Try with your other lenses. I hope this helps. :)

Thanks Melvin... will try that.

Im not sure if my issue is flare or ghosting or blooming. I may have my terms confused.

Anyway, it seem like we have a lot in common. I also have the 35-70/2.8, and am sort of planning to ditch my 18-70 for a 20/2.8 and 35-70 combo... It all depends on how much I like using the 20 and if i'm willing to part with the versatility of the 18-70.

Is it possible to post the pictures directly on the replies rather than send it via link (kainis firewalls dito sa office, unpredictable what to filter out)? I want to see your problems rin. The reason for my interest of the issue is that I found the 20mm prime the best flare control among my lenses. I was intending to sell it, because I just got my 17-35 which is outrageously the best lens EVER (kahit 2nd hand sya)!!! (I have to get rid of some lenses to pay it off... hahahah).

I have the 35-70mm and its probably one of the best lens I've seen. Its not as fast as other lenses, but its impressively sharp. If you have a 20mm and 35-70 F2.8 combo, I think you're ok.

@melvin, try uploading on http://www.imageshack.us/ then post a link here or thru the [ img ] tag.

thanks! i also want to see the samples. :)

@aris,

No, I mean, I was asking Carlo to post his pics using the [img] commands, and not via the link. The sites posted is somehow filtered by the firewall in our offices here.

I left my 20mm in Manila, so I can't send the comparisons to Carlo's copy. I'll send something as soon as i get back.

OT: Nice Borat pic!!! hahahaha :D

@melvin, i just realized it was carlo who cant post the images. so sorry.

hehehe, i just changed the borat pic - lapit na showing eh. :D

anyways, please share your 20mm pics ha. thanks!

Ok guys, moved the sample pics to flickr instead... they are now viewable. I edited the my post a few posts back... see it there na lng.

That was my first try with picasa web albums... looks like I dunno how to post pics from there.

I added another pic sa samples post, so i went over the 4 photos/post limit. Here is the other sample:

up close:
http://static.flickr.com/106/301701710_83e38e54ff.jpg

Ok... now the question... especially regarding the samples in the previous post... poor shooting technique hence the flare or poor lens copy?

Im hoping its the former coz that is much more easier to correct. :Grin:

I thought I'd solicit the help of DPP people to either tell me I made a good or bad buy based on sample photos taken by the used 20/2.8 that i recently purchased.

More sample shots in real world conditions. I'm really concerned about this lens. Especially the consistency. It can be good at times and not so great other times.

Anyway, here are a more samples... pixel peepers out there, give it a go.

Shot RAW, converted straight to jpeg without any adjustments using Nikon Capture.

Also used a lens hood that vignettes on the lens to see if flare is a hood related problem. Dont mind the vignetting.

Other notes:
1. There is some dirt (possible/borderline fungi) on the inside edge of the rear element. I don't think it is big enough to affect the DX image circle
2. The rear element seems to be different from my other lenses (18-70, 35-70/2.8, 50/1.8)... it seems speckled vs the clear rear element of the others. These tiny speckles dont really worry me because they are uniformly spread out and also look uniformly sized. It is strange though.
3. It seems to backfocus at times, but not all the time.
4. I definitely will have this checked and at the least CLA'd. I just others to tell me if im being overly paranoid or if i just dont know how to handle a wide angle prime.

1. Medium range, ok lighting
Focus is on the thermos, 1/100 f5
http://static.flickr.com/110/307462591_edc2ea4512.jpg
bigger version (1024 one side):
http://static.flickr.com/110/307462591_edc2ea4512_b.jpg

2. More dynamic range, not so great lighting.
Focus on the carabao eye, 1/40 f2.8
http://static.flickr.com/120/307463631_cde6827dbd.jpg
bigger version (1024 one side):
http://static.flickr.com/120/307463631_cde6827dbd_b.jpg

3. Landscape with hood
Focus on the farther mountain (infinity) 1/1250 f10

http://static.flickr.com/106/307463961_4e5b7997ed.jpg
bigger version (1024 one side):
http://static.flickr.com/106/307463961_4e5b7997ed_b.jpg

4. Up close performance
focus on the buds, 1/60 f4.5
http://static.flickr.com/99/307464138_21c3c0fd13.jpg
bigger version (1024 one side):
http://static.flickr.com/99/307464138_21c3c0fd13_b.jpg

more samples to follow...

if you want to do more pixel peeping, ask me for orig copies, will email.

5th sample:

No hood, focus on infinity, 1/500 f8

http://static.flickr.com/122/307467062_e6afc89b81.jpg
bigger version (1024 a side):
http://static.flickr.com/122/307467062_e6afc89b81_b.jpg

comparison with the 35-70/2.8. Same vantage point, I did not move forward or backward. 35-70@35mm

35-70:
http://static.flickr.com/114/307464676_432816c086.jpg
a bit bigger (1024 long side):
http://static.flickr.com/114/307464676_432816c086_b.jpg

20/2.8
http://static.flickr.com/108/307466868_c592a8eea6.jpg
a bit bigger (1024 long side):
http://static.flickr.com/108/307466868_c592a8eea6_b.jpg

35-70:
http://static.flickr.com/111/307465062_5db34f2569.jpg
a bit bigger (1024 long side):
http://static.flickr.com/111/307465062_5db34f2569_b.jpg

20/2.8
http://static.flickr.com/120/307466014_6267dc6d4f.jpg
a bit bigger (1024 long side):
http://static.flickr.com/120/307466014_6267dc6d4f_b.jpg

These sample shots are mostly landscapy and outdoors, where the lens really shines. I don't want to post people pics yet, because this is where I really see a giant difference from the 20/2.8 and the 35-70 and 50/1.8. However, I have a feeling that it may be technique rather than the lens when it comes to people. Thats why I just posted landscapy pics, so as to give the lens a fighting chance before being called a lemon.

Please be as fair and as brutal as you can. I'd really like to know if this is a good buy or a wasted of money.

Thanks in advance guys.

For original pics, pm or let me know and ill email them

Carlo

I think it's fungi..... or smoky lens. Have it cleaned and post another test photos.

=)

anybody know where I can have the lens CLA'd? Are there any other recommended guys out there aside from the obvious Columbia?