On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 23:05:52 -0400, "Jorge Morales"
>I am also interested in this discussion. I have a Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 (great
>lens but I wish it were more like 28 - 70 or 35 - 80) and want to get a
>wider lens I too have narrowed it down to either the 20mm or 24mm f/2.8.
>
>I have read several times that 20mm is too wide. What exactly is too wide?
>Isn't that why you would buy a wide angle in the first place? My
>understanding is that the 20mm is corrected to cause minimal distortion, so
>how is it harder to use than a 24mm? I am mostly interested in a good lens
>for landscape photos.
Ah, being a REAL wide-angle nut (see my web page for photos...), the
20 seems to me most moderate, and the 24, uh, well, dull...;-) The
difference between them is not great, but the 24 just seems awkward
to me, while the 20 begins to be wide enough to shoot with the camera
leveled while still covering the subject, or to use the wide coverage
to form an image with easily-controled graphic elements and shapes.
A 15mm is "wide" for me, as is an 8 or 16mm fisheye - and the 28 can
almost be used as a "normal" lens... (a 35mm can be used as a "normal"
lens...). I have owned several 24mm's, and I sold them all since I
tended not to use them. Since I bought the 20, I have used little
else (except for people commercial work - people do tend to frown on
group photos taken with the 20, since it "widens" them thar folks
placed near the frame edges...;-). BTW, the 20mm f2.8 Nikkor is also
a tad better at the edges/corners near infinity-focus than the 24mm
Nikkors at the useable f5.6 and smaller stops, it has somewhat lower
overall linear distortion, and it is less sensitive to out-of-frame
bright light (making it better for landscape work, I think...). For
those who find the near-to-far subject proportion differences too
great with the 20mm (hard to imagine! ;-), I recommend looking at a
full-frame fisheye (keep it level, though! ;-), since it reduces
those proportion differences (and it is kinder to distant people
near the frame edge...).