I wen't ahead and bought the lens. So far I'm pretty impressed. Sample image below, 100% crop at the bottom.

D90 w/tripod @ f/8.0, 1sec, isoL1.0

@TaoTeJared, @foto2021, and @drab - The three of you have been far more helpful. Thanks for the suggested alternatives, 20mm things to look out for, and f/2.8 low light concerns. I will definitely take some test shots prior to purchasing the lens. Thanks again!

@foto2021 - I enjoyed your post, I read some and then googled, read some more and googled some more. Very educating.

The 20 f/2.8 also isn't really all that fast. It isn't a direct replacement for a 1.8 or 1.4 prime.
At 1 and 1/3rds of a stop slower than 1.8 you're most of the way to the 3.5 (only 2/3rds of a stop) of any of the VR zooms.

On DX, with all the decent 18mm ish zooms with VR only 2/3rds of a stop slower I just don't see the place.

That said, the 24mm f/2.8 is my most often used lens on film.

TaoTeJared said:
The 20mm is good.

If you like a wide angle lens this is one way to do it. Distortion is always my concern since I do not want to mess with software to fix it. The 20mm seems to hold distortion well and using a DX will almost eliminate any. Sigma has a 20 1.8 but it is very large but is usually said to be good.

I have to disagree on the distortion issue. All versions of the 20mm f/2.8 AF Nikkor suffer from complex distortion that is sometimes called 'mustache' distortion. This is where barrel distortion in one element or group of elements is corrected by adding pincushion from another element or group, but the correction doesn't have the same curvature.

Complex distortion is present in several wide angle Nikkors but it is particularly noticeable in the 20mm f/2.8 AF. It is difficult to correct for.

Earlier in the thread, someone else recommended the 20-35mm f/2.8 AF Nikkor. This particular design suffered from sample variation because the unusual aspheric front element had to be polished by hand.

Even on film, many samples exhibited quite severe chromatic aberration (CA) giving very noticeable colour fringing. Samples which were afflicted with CA when used with film would of course exhibit even more severe CA when used on a digital body.

However, some samples of the 20-35mm were outstanding performers, offering sharper images than any fixed focal length Nikkors in the 20mm to 35mm range. Control of distortion was better than in the 20mm and 24mm f/2.8 with only slight traces of mustache distortion at the wide end, although there is the usual barrel at 20mm and pincushion at 35mm. This is to be expected and it isn't difficult to correct.

Of course the challenge is to find one of these better samples of the 20-35mm f/2.8 AF Nikkor. Many owners of these better samples realise what a fine lens it is and are unlikely to part with theirs. So it is likely that a higher proportion of those you see advertised on auction sites suffer from the CA problem.

As always, buy from a trusted seller with a good returns policy, and test, test, test the lens when you receive it! If it has CA, return it for a refund.

calabaria said:
Hi,

For those that have used the Nikkor AF 20mm f/2.8D on a DX body, what are you thoughts and experiences?
------Prior post from closed thread-----
Hello Everyone,

I am interested in purchasing an AF NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8D for use with a DX body. I understand the 1.5x crop factor equating in an equivalent 30mm. I've read around online, and several people say there are easier ways for obtaining wide angle, several DX kit lenses and other FX/DX 2.8 or 3.5 wide zooms. The problem with those are either they're bad in low light or outrageously expensive. Those two reasons are why I've started to look at the AF NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8D. Alternatives welcome, however, I'm pretty set on this lens because I have a friend selling one for 450, which isn't too bad.
Thanks!

The 20mm is good. I use a Tokina 17mm 3.5 and love it. $450 on ebay would be very high, but if it is in really good condition then it may be worth it. Personally I would pay maybe $350 at the high end for a excellent rated lens. I always plan on having it CLA-ed and that for me costs $120. I check KEH, do a google search and ebay to help know what the used market for lenses go for.

If you like a wide angle lens this is one way to do it. Distortion is always my concern since I do not want to mess with software to fix it. The 20mm seems to hold distortion well and using a DX will almost eliminate any. Sigma has a 20 1.8 but it is very large but is usually said to be good.

Hi,

For those that have used the Nikkor AF 20mm f/2.8D on a DX body, what are you thoughts and experiences?

Thanks!

Micah said:
So is the fact that it focuses so close to the front of the lens.

I completely agree, that and the 1.8 aperture combined allows you to take pretty unique shots that couldn't be taken otherwise.

I use it on DX and once I upgrade to FX, I'll probably sell it and get the 14-24 + a sigma 28 1.8

I can't sing the praises of the Sigma 20/1.8 enough. You do need to make sure you get a good copy. It's quite wide with full frame, and the 30-35mm equivalent angle of view it gets on dx is quite useful too. So is the fact that it focuses so close to the front of the lens.

It won't be much on your d60, but I find it nails focus wide open even on my d90.

studio460 said:
Now that you've decided . . .

The AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 lens was on my body 99% the time on a press tour in French Polynesia. It's wide enough, even on a DX camera, but not too wide for general editorial. I'm not a fan of short zooms, because I'm always on the wide end of them anyway. Plus, fast, f/2.8, short zooms tend to be pretty heavy. The 20mm is very small and extremely lightweight--it's barely there!

If you're moving from Brand-X zooms to Nikkor glass, I think the AF Nikkor 20mm is an excellent place to start! But for the price of that short zoom, you could buy the 20mm f/2.8, an 85mm f/1.8, and a fancy 105mm DC-Nikkor (or something equally exotic and fun), all for only a couple of hundred dollars more, and you'd have have hundreds more creative options that you wouldn't have with just the short zoom. Then, get a 80-400mm VR zoom, later, for far away stuff, and you'll be set!

But, if you've already decided . . .

I'm sure it is a fun focal length, I wish the 35mm DX really was a 35mm. It's not wide enough for some of the indoor shooting. I do love it at 1.8 though.

Now that you've decided . . .

The AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 lens was on my body 99% the time on a press tour in French Polynesia. It's wide enough, even on a DX camera, but not too wide for general editorial. I'm not a fan of short zooms, because I'm always on the wide end of them anyway. Plus, fast, f/2.8, short zooms tend to be pretty heavy. The 20mm is very small and extremely lightweight--it's barely there!

If you're moving from Brand-X zooms to Nikkor glass, I think the AF Nikkor 20mm is an excellent place to start! But for the price of that short zoom, you could buy the 20mm f/2.8, an 85mm f/1.8, and a fancy 105mm DC-Nikkor (or something equally exotic and fun), all for only a couple of hundred dollars more, and you'd have have hundreds more creative options that you wouldn't have with just the short zoom. Then, get a 80-400mm VR zoom, later, for far away stuff, and you'll be set!

But, if you've already decided . . .

Hye all,

Thanks for aaaaaall the helpful advices !!

After thinking a lot about this during my sleep last night, I think I know what I'm going to get with the D700, the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8. Its wide enough for me since I'd be doing some school events at the end of the year, I could use that setup and attach a 70-200mm on my D60 and capitalize on the long end! The 24-70mm is fast, bright, the only downside is the price of course! I'm going off for a long holiday next March, maybe I'll get the 20mm or something similar for walking long distance or something, if I have to and if I need to. Thanks again everybody, I really appreciate your views !

Regards,
Ihsan

ihsan, I hope you read this because I think this will help you.

I own and shoot a sigma 20mm f/1.8 and I can tell you that it's not a very sharp lens... it is however one of my favorite lens.

It is reasonably sharp in the middle, even at f/1.8. The reason why I love it this much is even tho this is a wide angle lens, it's almost a macro lens. By the way, the similar sigma 24 and 28 primes are labeled as macro lenses... This 20mm lens focuses so close, that you can get super shallow DOF at f/1.8 even if you're shooting a wide angle prime. I love it for weird portraits and low light photography. It's a unique lens that I will never regret buying. I'm thinking to upgrading to FX and I'll probably get a sigma 28mm f/1.8 to get that focal length back.

For the real wide angle on FX I'd get a 14-24 f/2.8.. or maybe the 17-35 or 16-35 if you don't need the f/2.8

My FX kit will mostly be the 14-24 + sigma 28 + nikkor 70-200.

My AF 20/2.8D - it has it's problems as some have said, but I'm not parting with it until an improved AFS version is available. A great film lens, but fringing (CA) is bad with with Gen 1 bodies D70, D60, Ect., but much improved with Gen 2 D300, D90 or NX 2 RAW processing. So it got a reprieve. The improved CA situation makes the lens seem much sharper on these newer bodies. I have no flare problems with mine, certainly compared to my 17-55/2.8 - but the 17-55 may be a tad sharper. Obviously, I'm a DX user, FX people will probably differ. I use mine in museums - it works well and doesn't attract a lot of attention. I really like the field of view on a DX body. Not quite a 28, but close enough.

I have been looking for a good wide lens to go with my F5 I just got. I would love to get the 17-35mm 2.8, but the price plays into it. So I have been looking into finding something that can fit what I want and fit my price. I found the 20-35mm 2.8 lens that covers almost the same range and is much less money. It might be something you would want to look into since it has your 20mm, but then can add to it with some more range to give you more options. You can get a used one in real good condition for around $600 on keh.com.

the 20 2.8 is an ok lens. . .you'll notice issues that are common with old Nikons: flare, fringing, and softness in corners.

I'd either get a "kit lens" like a Sigma 24-70 2.8 (cheaper than Nikon equivalent), or just simply try your luck with using a 50 1.8D or 50 1.4; you'll find it pretty darn wide on a FX.

if you are still craving uber wide, make a jump for the 16-35/4 Nikkor - at $1200 IT'S THE cheapest wide angle FX Nikon lens entry with sharp corners.

Hmmm.. I dont know.. but moving from a D60 with a couple of zooms to a D700 with a 20mm is unusual.. but more power to you if you have found your camera Eye !.. I cant say its a bad combination. Its a great combination if thats what You like!. As I have mentioned before I am weird too .. I can go all day with a 150 mm F2.8 macro prime on my DX camera ! When/IF I go FX I may have to pick up a 200mm F2 VR Nikkor. I vaguely remember that that 20mm nikkor is a great lens. I am sure that D60 will still work after you get your D700 .. It would be a great back up camera esp with the Tammy attached.

When I am out shooting I usually take my 18-200 on my back up camera and my 150 on my main camera.

Maybe you should stay with DX, FX lenses are pretty much all expensive (Nikkors especially).

Hello folks!

Been up and about recently about buying some new gears. I've been using a D60 for about 1 and a half years now, bought it in December 2008. Great little camera, good picture qualities, shame about the no-AF-motor-policy though. Anyway, I'm upgrading this year ! Getting the D700 next week probably, or sometime around June. I'm looking to buy the D700 along with a wide-angle lens, as I don't have any FX Wide Angle in my arsenal at the moment (my current lenses Tamron 17-50mm, Sigma 10-20mm, both of which I will sell soon). I'm looking for a decent wide-angle lens, light, small, cheap and fast. I came across the Nikkor AF 20mm f/2.8D which I thought was impressive. I'm looking to use this lens for walking around, travelling, and landscapes. On the D700, it'd be wide (not the widest but still) so thats not a problem. I also looked at the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 which offers a faster max. aperture but I'm not convinced it offers a better image quality than the Nikon. So if you guys would just let me know what I've been missing, is there a better option for a cheap, decent wide-angle lens? Better yet, post up some pros and cons about this lens, or some reviews would be good too!

All of your help will be greatly appreciated, thank you!

Regards,
Ihsan