Well it's decent at f/8, but not great. I guess the new 18-35 is actually a better deal for landscape photography (or even the Voigtländer 20mm -> 52mm filters!).
I think they should've gone with F4 and create a better performance lens at similar or lower price. I don't get the F1.8 for this lens.
Fast lenses are not designed ed as landscape lenses in first place, I think. Their purpose is indoor, event, street photography and the like - and for that f/4 is just too slow.
If you ever try a fast wide angle, borisbg, you might get the point, especially if the shortest distance are 20 cm. And compared to the 24/1.4 it's really a bargain.
10-23-2014, 03:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-23-2014, 03:34 PM by Rover.)
There's no point in creating a slow prime (unless it's designed specially for compactness like the Voigtlanders). And this new Nikkor looks like it's a good deal better than either the Sigma 20/1.8 or the Voigtlander that is 2 stops slower and not a great performer away from center until stopped well down. Oh, and it's MF. If I had been shooting Nikon I would've considered this 20/1.8 unit. Stop down to f/5.6 and you're golden (and the Voigtlander never reaches that level, even at f/11).
I am the source. Testing distance of the 20mm lens will be 20mm x 51 = 1020mm, and at close focus distance astigmatism is very visible. At landscape distances the lens performs pretty good sharpness wise.