On 14 Jan 1999 02:57:35 -0600, rmonagha@news.smu.edu (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
>see related postings at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronwide.html
[...]

>David's point is well taken- the 20mm f/2.8 nikkor is a fine lens, but I
>find there is quite a bit of difference in 3mm at the ultrawide end, at
>least in how much background you get in and how it looks, with a 17mm vs
>20 mm (or 18mm vs 21mm).
[...]

It appeared to me that the 17mm Tokina was not really very
much wider than the 20mm f2.8 Nikkor, perhaps due to FL
"fudging" in its rating by the mfgr... For this reason, I
also sold my Nikkor 18mm f3.5 - it was not as good as the
20mm f2.8, and the coverage was greater by only a miniscule
amount. BTW, I recently acquired a 20mm f3.5 AIS Nikkor - it
was clearly not as wide as the 20mm f2.8 Nikkor, though the
mfgr. and rated FL were the same... Also, BTW, my 15mm
Nikkor IS clearly wider than the 20...! ;-)