Nikon W/A. 20mm 1.8G or 18-35 G ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GHP
  • Start date Start date
GHP

GHP

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,864
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, I am undecided as to my next lens purchase.
I want to have a go at getting into landscapes/cityscapes etc.
I think I have narrowed my lens choice down to either the Nikon 20mm f1.8G, or the 18-35 G.
They are priced similarly, and I don't want to spend more, as it's a new discipline for me, and later, if I get on ok with landscapes, I may add to/upgrade anyway.
The dilemma is prime (better optically, but fixed F/L vs. zoom (slightly lower quality/more flexibility)
I use a D750 BTW.

If you were in a similar position, what would you do?
 
For exterior work the speed is not an issue. Consistent sharpness across the frame at smaller apertures rather than outright centre sharpness is probably my first consideration (after weight).
 
  • Like
Reactions: GHP
18-35 without a doubt, the fixed perspective of the 20mm would frustrate me. You'd be stopped down most of the time anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GHP
If you don't mind s/h you could pick up a nikon AFS16-35mm f4 VR or for even less money a used Sigma 15-30mm f3.5/4.5 a very underrated lens with some great revues if you search the net !
I'm spoils I guess as I have both those zooms and the primes which I personally love.
Either way you will end up with a superb piece of glass :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GHP
The 24mm scores massively, but it depends what you already have. I have the 24-70 and although the 24mm no doubt scores waaaaaaay more, the 20 offers me a focal length i don't have.

Having said that, I've had the 18-35 before and it's a stellar lens. Weighs nothing, takes filters and it zooms internally which is always a bonus in my book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GHP
Buying the sharpest lens in the world won't make your pictures any better. Pick the lens within budget which will be most useful.
 
minnnt said:
The 24mm scores massively, but it depends what you already have. I have the 24-70 and although the 24mm no doubt scores waaaaaaay more, the 20 offers me a focal length i don't have.

Having said that, I've had the 18-35 before and it's a stellar lens. Weighs nothing, takes filters and it zooms internally which is always a bonus in my book.
Click to expand...

Same here, I have a 24-120 f4 so there wasn't much point in duplicating the 24mm focal length. I did swap a 16-35 for the 20mm f1.8. The reasons were wanting to try some close focused wide angle remote stuff and some night stuff (f1.8 aperture helps). I didnt use the 16-35 that much so the 20mm f1.8 is a summer trial that I may sell on if it's not used enough.

GHP said:
OK, I am undecided as to my next lens purchase.
I want to have a go at getting into landscapes/cityscapes etc.
I think I have narrowed my lens choice down to either the Nikon 20mm f1.8G, or the 18-35 G.
They are priced similarly, and I don't want to spend more, as it's a new discipline for me, and later, if I get on ok with landscapes, I may add to/upgrade anyway.
The dilemma is prime (better optically, but fixed F/L vs. zoom (slightly lower quality/more flexibility)
I use a D750 BTW.

If you were in a similar position, what would you do?
Click to expand...
When people think of lenses for landscapes many think of the ultra wide angle lens. For landscapes you can use longer focal length like 24-70, 24-120 or 70-200. I've found I like to use my 70-200 for landscapes, my 24-120 is a useful range too. Ultra wide angle can cover a huge area so it may be too wide. If it was my only lens and I was just starting landscapes I would definitely go for a zoom as the prime (even though it's sharper) could be limiting.
 
Thanks to all of you for the replies.
I am normally very specific when it comes to lenses. For portraits, I have gone down the prime route, and am very happy with my choices.
But for landscapes, it's a different kettle of fish, as I don't really know what I'm doing !!
I currently have from 35mm to 200 mm covered with mostly primes, and I'm thinking the 18-35, or s/h 16-35 would be a good "starter" lens, as I could see which f/l I use the most.
Then go down the prime route. (This is what I did with my portrait kit)
I did also consider the 24mm f1.8g, again another stellar lens.
Choices, choices !
 
Good points everyone,I think i agree with gary that once you perhaps find the FL that you like then getting a prime at that FL makes sense,
my question which may help Gary is do landscape photographers *generally* tend to shoot at their preferred FL or do they vary it,i know when i had the 16-35 on canon i invariabley used the 16mm,ok you do have the options with a zoom but i think if you do tend to have that fav FL get the prime for its benefits if there
are any to be had.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Good points everyone,I think i agree with gary that once you perhaps find the FL that you like then getting a prime at that FL makes sense,
my question which may help Gary is do landscape photographers *generally* tend to shoot at their preferred FL or do they vary it,i know when i had the 16-35 on canon i invariabley used the 16mm,ok you do have the options with a zoom but i think if you do tend to have that fav FL get the prime for its benefits if there
are any to be had.
Click to expand...

That's actually a very good point.
I did a similar exercise with my portrait primes, and settled on 135mm as my preferred length.
For a few reasons TBH, but I found that I am trying to develop a "look" for my portraits which is consistent.
Not saying that I never use my 85, or longer, or whatever, but the 135 is my 1st choice, and if the shot needs a different F/L, then that's what I will use.
 
I would just like to add that i do like variety but sometimes it can be my downfall and i lose focus(no pun intended) and having zooms I'm all over the place,no discipline at all,so having a fixed FL helps to steady my thought flow,i blame the gemini in me :)
so it can often depend on personality on which you prefer,guess thats stating the obvious but whilst loving choice it is also not good for me :0what about you?
 
The 'problem' with zooms is that they make your photography lazy, rather than choose the perfect focal length for the composition/effect you're after there's a strong tendency to just zoom in or out and out to 'get it all in' giving little thought to how the focal length itself makes a difference

Short zooms tend to be used at either end too, so effectively making them into 2 'primes' but without being as good as those primes probably would be

Zooms that start at f4 or even the more expensive f2.8 are still limiting your options compared to a prime at f1.8 or faster

Zoom with your feet, it'll keep you fitter :D

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
The 'problem' with zooms is that they make your photography lazy, rather than choose the perfect focal length for the composition/effect you're after there's a strong tendency to just zoom in or out and out to 'get it all in' giving little thought to how the focal length itself makes a difference

Short zooms tend to be used at either end too, so effectively making them into 2 'primes' but without being as good as those primes probably would be

Zooms that start at f4 or even the more expensive f2.8 are still limiting your options compared to a prime at f1.8 or faster

Zoom with your feet, it'll keep you fitter :D

Dave
Click to expand...

I agree with the focal length effect, especially with the compression of longer lenses.
This was very much why I have several primes for portraits. I will use the best lens for the shot.
I'm just genuinely not sure which focal length I will get the best from.o_O
 
how about renting a decent zoom for a day or 2 then shooting at a few different FL,then when you view them later you might find your fav
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
how about renting a decent zoom for a day or 2 then shooting at a few different FL,then when you view them later you might find your fav
Click to expand...

I did consider this, and may well do.
I did look at renting the 16-35 f4.
Like anything else, landscapes will take some time to get my head around!
I might even cough up for a course !
 
Am also interested in this question! I'm pretty much sold on getting a single prime at 20 or 24 and the f/1.8 are reasonable value for their exceptional optical qualities. I'm struggling to see how a zoom can be engineered to be better or even as good in all facets as the best prime (let alone all primes in its range - something which is said about the Sigma 24-35 Art)...

I think there's something positive in forcing yourself to think a bit more carefully about composition and having that single focal length does impose that.
 
pjm1 said:
Am also interested in this question! I'm pretty much sold on getting a single prime at 20 or 24 and the f/1.8 are reasonable value for their exceptional optical qualities. I'm struggling to see how a zoom can be engineered to be better or even as good in all facets as the best prime (let alone all primes in its range - something which is said about the Sigma 24-35 Art)...

I think there's something positive in forcing yourself to think a bit more carefully about composition and having that single focal length does impose that.
Click to expand...
Agreed and the 24 gets quite a bit more out of the sensor unless 20 is your prefered fl
 
pjm1 said:
Am also interested in this question! I'm pretty much sold on getting a single prime at 20 or 24 and the f/1.8 are reasonable value for their exceptional optical qualities. I'm struggling to see how a zoom can be engineered to be better or even as good in all facets as the best prime (let alone all primes in its range - something which is said about the Sigma 24-35 Art)...

I think there's something positive in forcing yourself to think a bit more carefully about composition and having that single focal length does impose that.
Click to expand...

There are no zooms which are better or even as good as a quality prime, especially the new 20/24/35 1.8 G lenses.
(Although the Nikon 14-24 is pretty damn close !)
My problem is knowing which (as a newbie to landscapes) focal length to go for.
Hence the zoom, try out all the options, then buy the prime which matches my most used focal length.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I think 'zoom with your feet' is a bit wishful thinking at this end of the focal range (just as it is at the extreme long end). You can be talking hundreds of metres of walking that might include trespassing, climbing, large bodies of water etc. Not to mention that getting the framing and depth of field you want could be literally impossible if the angle of view is enforced; but if you must have a prime then it's easier to crop a wider image than to stitch a panoramic.
 
Last edited:
frod said:
I think 'zoom with your feet' is a bit wishful thinking at this end of the focal range (just as it is at the extreme long end). You can be talking hundreds of metres of walking that might include trespassing, climbing, large bodies of water etc. Not to mention that getting the framing and depth of field you want are literally impossible if the angle of view is enforced.
Click to expand...

The difference between 18mm and 20mm isn't exactly massive though? Which is the only really relevant end of the range since it's always possible to crop in to simulate a longer focal range. Yes, you lose resolution but with the sensors we have now, it's not a biggie IMHO.

I think it's more about what focal length Gary (and others) feel most comfortable with. The difference between 20mm and 35mm is significant in terms of how you compose your shots - as Gary has said, he's not sure so I guess take a complete punt on a fixed prime or go zoom (which sounds like his preferred option first off).
 
pjm1 said:
The difference between 18mm and 20mm isn't exactly massive though?
Click to expand...
Sure, but them neither is the quality difference between zooms and primes unless you're pixel peeping or printing billboards.
 
frod said:
Sure, but them neither is the quality difference between zooms and primes unless you're pixel peeping or printing billboards.
Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on. for most of us it comes down far more to why you want a particular lens (flexibility, cost, weight) than the relative strengths at the extremes of use. Maybe flare control is slightly more relevant but that aside, given a lot of shots are likely to be at f8 or even f11, performance should be "pretty good" across all of these lenses.
 
The wider lenses get the more difficult they are to use - without resorting to clichéd shots of big rocks in the foreground! Once you get wider than 18mm things start looking a bit 'fishy'. Not exactly fish-eye distorted, but noticeably so at the edges of the frame. Not always an issue, but it's an effect than can be too obvious and detract from some pictures. Try the 18-35 and see if any of its range suits you. You'll soon discover if you'd like, or need, to go wider.
 
A good discussion this is turning out to be.
Thanks for all the comments.
I think all of the points raised are very relevant too.
From looking at many shots on flickr etc, I think either 20 or 24mm will be where I end up.
Of course, as I've said already, I won't know until I try.
As mentioned, I think my best course of action is to try a zoom, and see where I end up shooting the most.
It's what I did with my portraits, used an 80-200.and looked in LR to see which length I used most, and which length I liked the look of.
Weight and cost aren't (within reason), a concern, but image quality and optical quality are.
Also, I think the decision is made slightly more complex with wides due to the bigger differences when changing focal lengths.
The difference between 135 and 140mm is, as an example, tiny, compared to the difference between 20 and 24.
And, whilst I am normally one who says zoom with your feet, this would not always be as easy when close to a cliff edge, or at the water's edge.
 
GHP said:
A good discussion this is turning out to be.
Thanks for all the comments.
I think all of the points raised are very relevant too.
From looking at many shots on flickr etc, I think either 20 or 24mm will be where I end up.
Of course, as I've said already, I won't know until I try.
As mentioned, I think my best course of action is to try a zoom, and see where I end up shooting the most.
It's what I did with my portraits, used an 80-200.and looked in LR to see which length I used most, and which length I liked the look of.
Weight and cost aren't (within reason), a concern, but image quality and optical quality are.
Also, I think the decision is made slightly more complex with wides due to the bigger differences when changing focal lengths.
The difference between 135 and 140mm is, as an example, tiny, compared to the difference between 20 and 24.
And, whilst I am normally one who says zoom with your feet, this would not always be as easy when close to a cliff edge, or at the water's edge.
Click to expand...

Excellent. Now can I buy your 18-35 when you come to sell it? ;)
 
pjm1 said:
Excellent. Now can I buy your 18-35 when you come to sell it? ;)
Click to expand...

I'll give you first dibs! (y)
It will take a while though, so I wouldn't hold your breath.
 
Any update Gary , im watching carefully as im thinking of getting the 24 myself so look forward to your choice :)
 
My Vivitar 19-35 is an amazing lens for the money.

Superb from f5.6 - f16

Worth looking out for one of those if you don't want to spend too much
 
GreenNinja67 said:
My Vivitar 19-35 is an amazing lens for the money.

Superb from f5.6 - f16

Worth looking out for one of those if you don't want to spend too much
Click to expand...

Actually, that was another idea I was considering.
Get a manual focus zoom, a cheap one, and find out my favoured focal length before going for the prime of choice.
Not a bad plan TBH, as I am more of a prime shooter than a zoomer.
I'll have a look around over the weekend I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top