Anyone have experience with wide primes? I was looking at either the 20mm f2.8 or the newer 20 f1.8 I was previously using a 12-24 f4 but it got damaged so I wanted to try something else[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerAJImage-Specific Properties:
In F mount? The 20 2.8 AF-D is cheap and decent, not super sharp in the corners at 2.8 but usable. The size is the biggest plus for me. It’s tiny and you never mind tossing it in a bag just in case. The 1.8 looks amazing if you’re doing astrophotography at all, so go for that if so. For landscapes where you’re stopping down to 5.6 or 8 anyway? The 2.8 is totally fine.The Z mount 20mm S lens is in another league altogether.
>>4309260Astrophotography is something I’ve done before with lesser lenses so thanks for that suggestion, I think the 1.8 would be better for me of the 20mms, any other wide primes you could suggest?
>>4309255i think this was 20mm f/2.8 af-d plus uv-filter, not sure thoughmost images came without flare
>>4309294There’s a 15 3.5 that’s pretty spectacular but you’re giving up a full stop and it’s pricier. I think 20 is the sweet spot in terms of being ultrawide but not looking too crazy. Otherwise there’s the excellent 14-24 f/2.8 holy trinity lens, but that’s a heckin chonker.
>>4309300Nice lens but yeah that thing is massive, plus attached to a giant FF body you got a brick
There's a few modern-ish MF wide primes too, Irix 15 2.4, Rokinon 14 2.4, maybe some others. I don't have any myself though, besides a MF RMC Tokina 24 2.8.There are also some good deals on 17-35 2.8-4 tamron (which is reasonably sized too), but I have no idea how good that is.
The Nikon 17-35 is pretty nice I will say. Temper your expectations, it’s not as good as a 14-24 in the 17-24 range nor as good as the 24-70 from 24-35… but it’s a solid performer taken on its own merits. The 20-35, do not bother.
>>4309255>>14508214https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/brice-rhodes-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-2016-triple-murder-conviction/article_e08c90c8-e149-11ee-ba90-3f2bb0cd6309.htmlRacist KKK white pig retard who discriminates against Asians should kill himself.
>>4309717the fuck>>4309255ive been eyeing the viltrox 20/2.8 (for mirrorless) - its tiny and ridiculously cheap ($160), plus the reviews say its not at all bad. maybe its worth trying it for the price without blasting big money on a lens thats twice the size and has similiar performance(?)
Ive been looking at picking up an FD 24mm f/2.8 for my F1 New. Decent prices on Ebay. I have a 28mm f/3.5 which performs surprisingly well. Does anyone have any experience with the Canon FD wides?
>>4309255I own a 21 mm F 2.8 Zeiss Great amazing lens
>>4309731bought the 20/2.8 mentioned and its fantastic considering the price.
>>4309260>The Z mount 20mm S lens is in another league altogether.I think this is the lens that actually convinced me to finally switch over to mirrorless. I can't decide between the ZF and the Z8, though.
Wide lenses are especially useful if you're stuck in cramped areas while filming or photographing.
>>4309255>I was previously using a 12-24 f4 but it got damagedWhat'd you do to it?
>>4311472Dropped it and cracked the composite frame, the lens elements are ok but now the left side of pictures are out of focus
>>4311441Z8 if you have the funds, no question. No mechanical shutter to fail, higher resolution, insane burst modes, native 64 ISO, it’s a do everything wonder machine. That Zf a cutie tho. If I were only adapting vintage lenses or shooting with manual Voigtlanders or I cared about how a camera looks, I might choose it over a Z8. >>4311471That’s right Zach, very good.
>>4309255Yeah. I shot for years with Nik’s wild 14mm aspherical prime. I loved the shit out of that big glass monster. Easily my fave lens of all time. BUT the plebs hated the distortion & the optics are circa-2000 so lenses have gotten a good bit sharper since then. It was fine & great on my FA through my D2x & 36mp D810e, bc the resolving power of the glass and the sensor were about equal. ...but when I plop it on my Z7 at 45mp I can see the difference between it and the Zeiss 18mm Batis. And the Batis + Megadap II are half the size & weight of the 14mm + FTZ. And the AF works on the Batis, unlike the 14 with the FTZ breaking AF. So fml, my 14 is in my eBay pile. :(
>>4311441I have the ZF, a Z7, and my Dad has the Z8. Man that Z8 is a bunch of camera to haul around. The ZF is as big as I want to go on a body ever. The 6/7/II’s are damn near perfect. ...the ZF’s size is different, bc they turned the battery to lay flat, so it made the body wider, but it’s nice if you want to snuggle a camera in a jacket pocket bc pop the lens off, and between the grip and the eyepiece the whole body is actually thinner than even my classic film cameras. I’m able to transport it and the Z 28mm lens in my light summer jacket pockets on the plane & into places where I’d otherwise not be able to get a good camera. Also the ZF has an incredibly good feel in the hand, that sounds superficial if you’re an aspie nerd that thinks the only aspect of photography is edge sharpness in ur photos, but if you’re a fully functional human being that understands why a Sony is a miserable camera to shoot with, then you’ll also appreciate an equally-spaced improvement beyond the old 90’s plastic & rubber blob body designs we think of as current. The ZF is a fucking metal brick of a camera and it feels fucking gooood to shoot with.
>>4311876I’m just pissed that Nikon shit the bed and put the ducking 24mpx sensor in it just like the Z6. WTF. They should have put the 36mp sensor in it. That’d make considerably more sense in their lineup.
>>4311879Gotta save something for the ZfII
>>4311879I personally feel that the 24mpx sensor was a good choice. Its enough for 99% of the work youre probably gonna be doing and.. Who doesnt like a big ass pixel you know.
>>4311876>i am a real person and people who dont like this camera are fake peopleAnd you autists wonder why larp camera fanboys get bullied
>>4309686This
>>4309686What's wrong with the 20-35mm?Not enough range?
>>4312604Notoriously a soft lens. Not worth what you can get for the same price with nicer lenses
>>4312604You mean besides the fl range? It’s such a meme lol. Why is everyone making these super weird seemingly pointless “lite” zooms? Canon put out a 24-50, sigma has the old 24-35, are they normie fodder?
>>4311824I'm kind of leaning towards the Z8 just because it's the second-newest camera in their lineup and the ZF has a fairly deprecated sensor. So does the Z8, but i can live with that for the megapixels and insane stacked sensor performance. I usually make cameras last at least 8 to 10 years, so $3500 ain't too bad.I might also yolo and get a canon r6 ii instead, though. Feeling spunky.
OP here I'm glad I ordered the 20mm 1.8 when I did, it arrived just in time for the Northern Lights last weekend.>>4309260The 1.8 came in handy for sure. If I had just used my 10-20 f4 lens it would not have looked this great[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D7000Camera SoftwareAdobe Bridge 2020 (Windows)PhotographerAJMMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)30 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Created2024:05:12 08:46:09Exposure Time2 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length20.00 mmImage Width4928Image Height3264Exposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
