baldycotton@mindspring.com wrote in message <352326d0.5909925@news.mindspring.com>...
>ssingh@informix.com (Sanjay Singh) said,

>>>After thinking of replacing a Tamron 28-80 with the Nikon 24-120, I
>>>decided to keep what I had and add either the Nikon 20 or 24 2.8D. I
>>>read the lens reviews all over the net, visited a few local camera
>>>shops, and it seems most say that the optical quality of the 24 is
>>>slightly better than the 20. I think I would benefit more form the 20,
>>>as I already have down to 28 covered, but is there a significant
>>>different in quality (besides the price of the 24 is $150 less)? Any
>>>recommendations would help.

>Tough call... Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't line convergence a problems at 20mm (or
>less). I haven't used one, but I DID own a 24mm, which I considered to be as wide as I'd like to
go
>on a regular basis. Are you able to borrow or rent the 20 to see if you can really make
justifiable
>use of it? Don't get caught up in the "special effect" of the lens, because the practical
>application is going to be very limited.
>Also, what are the thread sizes for filters? I'm guessing, but I'll bet you're gonna be up there
in
>the 80mm range with a 20mm lens, and a polarizer (important for landscapes) is gonna cost a bunch.
>Good luck on your decision.

Hmmm, methinks photo world people may be split into those who understand
and appreciate the wond'rous advantages of wide-angle photography, and those
who prefer to photograph small chunks of their environment at a time...;-)
I prefer to get into the camera's view as much as possible, using 6, 8, 15,
16, and 20mm lenses (the 20 really is a "tele", from my point of view...;-),
and, with good organization of the elements of the image, show relationships
between the parts of the subject. The 20 is a good "all-around" lens for me,
since I can use it to photograph most everything, and the optical performance
of the Nikkor 20mm f2.8 is good enough that there are no compromises that
need be made due to the limitations of the lens (and, BTW, I do find the
edges and corners of the 20mm f2.8 somewhat better than those of the excellent
Nikkor 24mm f2.8, even when the lenses are well stopped down..., and also
BTW, the Nikkor 20mm filter size is a reasonable 62mm, though I would not use
a polarizer on such a wide lens due to the uneven polarization that would
be evident over the wide angle of coverage... [I never could stand the
artificial-color look of polarizers anyway, so I don't consider them
desireable for most landscapes...;-]). To the original poster: if you
already have a 28mm you are happy with, go for the 20 (a 24 is too close
to the 28 to bother with...;-). So, there! ;-)
--
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
ruether@fcinet.com