24 replies to this topic

[g4aaw pete]

They both look very similar, but the UD has better contrast.

Good test!

[La Bikina]

I discover that the 20 mm AF warp more the photo than the UD, but both are totally valid.

[g4aaw pete]

Any favorite,g4aaw Pete ?

 

More comfortable to use the 20mm 3.5 UD, Is the only I can say that I enjoy the MF lens. But You can see the 2.8 AF is small and compact, and fast focusing.

 

Buildings seems like west side story but industrial area

 

 

I'd be happy to use either, but would lean toward the UD version.

I don't plan to buy one though, I'll stick with the AF version - for now.

[Merco_61]

The AF D version has more field curvature and more distortion than the UD. It is contrastier than the manual focus f/2.8 version. from my old observations

It would be interesting to see how it fares @ the same aperture as the UD. I think the vignetting is more or less gone @ f/3.5 and the curved field gets better stopped down a bit too. The distortion doesn't change, of course.

[La Bikina]

I can do new test both on f/3.5 and same speed too, in different place other funny building. I wanted to use both at maximum aperture for the first time test.

The UD I think is more rock solid, the 72mm make the difference vs 62mm of the f/2.8 AF.

But both works well to photo buildings and architecture. I like to have both, but the UD is magical

Surely in few next days I will post the new test "same conditions" with both lens.