Hi, I am considering buying a wide angle prime for my D7000. I currently own an 18-200 VR and I was wondering if there is an image quality difference between my current lens and the Nikon 20 2.8 AF D? I would do a side by side comparison but my 18-200 is at Nikon for repairs (no AFS, no VR). Thanks, John
I'll probably get myself in trouble for saying this, but (while I slip into some asbestos underwear) that 20mm prime is not considered a great lens, although it might exceed your 18-200 at 20mm. Either way you're duplicating existing functionality by replacing an ok lens with an ok lens. With your kit, that's not where I'd recommend you put your money.
I don't know what you're paying but in that price range, ultra-wide options like Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, and Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 will open up new worlds to your camera.
Or if you're looking for a faster lens to do subject isolation, AF-S lenses 28mm f/1.8G, 35mm f/1.8DX, 50mm f/1.8G, 85mm f/1.8G will offer more interesting options, depending on what subject matter interests you most.
I was in Vegas when my 18-200 stopped working, so I started using my 50 1.8 AF D. It was great shooting a fast lens. The photos were sharp with excellent contrast. The only inconvenience was that the 50 mm wasn't wide enough.
I tried a Sigma 15-30 but found the lens cumbersome and the images too soft for my liking. My preference is to purchase a wide prime that is light for travel, fast & sharp like the 50mm.
I'm afraid you have just identified the one weakness of DX. There just aren't any really wide, fast primes. I used a Nikon 12-24 when I shot DX and I think it was really good. But not terribly fast at f/4. Fast enough with the newer sensors, but not exceptional like what you can get in the FX world where both really wide and very fast are achievable (you can use the same lenses on DX, but they aren't wide - just sort of wide). It's what finally drove me to FX. But I do miss the lighter weight and smaller size that DX offers.
>I'm afraid you have just identified the one weakness of DX. >There just aren't any really wide, fast primes.
This is very true and a great point. I'll add that, even in FX, part of the reason a zoom lens like the 14-24 can earn a reputation for being better than primes, is because the primes it's competing against just aren't that good.
...and the 14-24 really is that good. I'd certainly recommend this over the 20mm prime, if f/2.8 is really a requirement, but it will cost a bit more.
For my purposes, I don't much feel the Need for Speed in this focal length range.
I once compared an 18-105 to a 20 f2.8 prime. Aperture by aperture... the zoom won the sharpness test all over the frame. Plus, f3.5 with VR against f2.8... in my book the zoom won again. Plus, being paid for, as opposed to buying, guess what: I kept the zoom and went happy about it.
http://egozarolho.blogspot.com 1. Good content, good aesthetics and good tecnique. On that order. 2. Light is more important than glass and pixels. 3. In the digital photography process, software is as important as gear.
I was hoping to avoid the weight and size of a WA zoom but I am starting to reconsider my choices. The 12-24 f/4 appears to be a good alternative and it actually bridges a gap in focal lengths for my existing set of lenses.
I had tried the Sigma 15-30 DG EX but I was very disappointed with the soft images and flare. This was my only non Nikon lens .
I prefer to keep all my equipment Nikon and will purchase the 12-24 f/4 as soon as I can find a good deal.