Wider please, but on a budget: the Nikon AF-P 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 DX VR review

IMG_9645b copy

Most of you know me for being at the bleeding edge of hardware and being able to deploy the difference – that was true at least until my back injury last year, which has severely limited what I’m able to carry for any length of time. It has forced me to look at things I would normally have ignored; for whatever reason, in this industry light and small is usually also synonymous for ‘entry level’ and ‘cheap’. But in doing so, I’ve found some surprising hidden gems: hardware that most people pass over at face value for lack of bragging rights or seemingly ‘obvious’ deficiencies. Be prepared to be surprised, I was. This will be the first in a series of el cheapo reviews.

When I started off with DSLRs, the king of Nikon wides – DX only at the time, of course – was the AF-S 12-24/4. It was a decent performer even on the 12MP bodies, but started to fall apart with anything much more resolving than that. Distortion was…spectacular and not easily correctable. It was also very much a prosumer build lens, with light plastic everything, the slower AF-S motor and a non-prosumer whopping $1200 price tag or thereabouts. Fast forward fifteen years and we now have a successor (there was also the AF-S 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 DX, which sits somewhere between the two in price, build and optics). It takes many things away: it isn’t as long (20mm vs 24mm); it has an even plastickier build – even the mount is plastic – and it’s pretty much a stop slower across most of the range. BUT: it is $280 or so, new, from your choice of online outlet, and has VR, the new fast AF-P pulse motor, and weighs just 230g. It even covers FX from 13mm upwards, though the Z6 and Z7 will auto-crop to DX and you can’t override this. If you are not a fan of long reviews, then just enjoy the images, skim through the rest, and click the buy link at the bottom of the post.

_3502806 copy

To put things in context: this lens cost the same as my camera (an albeit unusually cheap D3500 kit) but less than a medium format battery. It continues to amaze me how far optical design is being pushed at both ends of the spectrum: we have some truly amazing premium lenses, but by relaxing one or two of the usual design constraints (maximum aperture, distortion, secondary corrections, use of moulded plastic asphericals etc.) we also have some truly amazing budget lenses.

_3502752 copy

I suspect the rationale goes like this: the company has already bought or developed all of that expensive optical computation software; the price-volume curve at this end of the market is wildly nonlinear, and something like the 10-20 is probably going to sell two or three orders of magnitude more lenses than say the superteles or PC-Es, and be more profitable as a total project. More resources than you might expect get thrown into it, and suddenly – you actually have a really good lens.

_3502483 copy

Don’t get me wrong: Nikon has clearly cut corners here. The mount is plastic; there are no switches for AF/MF or VR on/off (that has to be done in a menu, and some cameras require a firmware update). The AF-P motor is only compatible with the most recent generation or two of cameras. There is of course no rear gasket. Hell, it’s so cheap that the regulatory labels and MADE IN THAILAND are part of the injection moulding of the shell – they aren’t even a separate sticker. Speaking of which, the nameplate – metal on even Nikon’s midrange lenses – is a sticker here. Even the mount indexing dot isn’t the usual glued-in plastic ball: it’s printed.

_3502333 copy

Like the rest of the DX AF-P lenses, it’s a class leading study in both marketing stinginess and engineering brilliance: despite all of the compromises, the lens feels neither hollow, nor insubstantial nor flimsy. The zoom ring rotates with constant friction and good smoothness, and none of the usual plastic-on-plastic stickiness; it doesn’t feel very different to my gold ring Nikkors, to be honest. And the focus ring is fly by wire, but silky smooth and very nicely calibrated.

_3502254 copy

Where Nikon hasn’t cut too many corners is in the stuff that really matters: optics and mechanics. The 10-20 uses a surprisingly complex 14 elements in 11 groups, with three asphericals and (surprisingly) no ED elements. There are however a lot of achromatic doublets used in the design: three or four, depending on how you’re counting. Undoubtedly this keeps unwanted dispersion to a minimum. There is very little longitudinal chromatic aberration but some lateral visible at wider focal lengths; the small aperture probably helps too. (It also means that peak resolution is found somewhere between maximum aperture and f8, after which diffraction starts to soften things a bit on the 24MP DX bodies.)

_3502423 copy

The optical tradeoff made appears to be in field flatness and distortion. There’s some strange focal plane curvature going on towards the corners that’s more visible at close distances and seems to go away a bit at infinity. This manifests as softer corners, but actual behaviour seems to be more like strong rearward field curvature. It’s even clearer when you put the lens on a FX body: there’s a really abrupt dropoff in the corners of the image circle beyond DX. So although you can use it from 13mm upwards on FX, you probably won’t want to because the corners take a beating. In fact, the image circle around 17mm or so is actually larger than at 20mm. However: if you have a D850 and don’t mind using the 1.2x crop, it’s actually pretty good: you have a very cheap wideangle that will cover ~15mm-equivalent upwards, and still keeping better-than-DX-resolution (about 30MP or so).

_3502304 copy

The actual characteristics of distortion are also worth some discussion: it’s mostly simple, of the barrel-type, at every focal length. There is almost none of the messy moustache-type (uncorrectable). It also avoids the typical wide angle projection* distortion: the edges don’t get stretched excessively larger compared to the middle, so the images appear surprisingly natural in perspective for a lens this wide. (I would still of course recommend holding the camera level.) This appears to have been one of the main design tradeoffs: distortion against field curvature and sharpness. It also isn’t entirely symmetric on my copy, which suggests some sensitivity to sample variation; I didn’t have a second copy to test.

*Wide angle foreground-background emphasis is NOT the same as projection: projection is when you flatten 3D space into 2D, e.g. for maps of the earth. Frequent stitchers will know there are a lot of different ways of doing this and the results can be very different: but what is stitching other than creating an effective angle of view wider than the one you’ve got on the camera?

_3502200 copy

Flare is very well controlled, with only one or two purple ghosts at the wider focal lengths. Coma is similarly well controlled, with some smearing visible in the corners on the 24MP DX bodies, but nowhere near as bad as you’d expect. If you’re wondering why I haven’t talked about sharpness/resolution and bokeh – it’s because there’s nothing much to report. Central sharpness is as good as you can wish at pretty much all focal lengths from wide open, but falls off into the corners due to the previously mentioned field curvature. As with all recent Nikon lenses – macrocontrast is high, with microcontrast probably best described as coarse. It isn’t as refined as the Z lenses or gold rings, but it also doesn’t have the same coatings or price tag. Finally, don’t even bother talking about shallow DOF: remember this is a slow superwide.

_3502241 copy

I’m going to conclude by stating the obvious: Nikon has made an impressive lens, made truly impressive by the price and size. The tradeoffs are sensible and can easily be worked around. For the DX shooter, it’s a no-brainer: buy one. For the FX shooter who only needs the occasional wide: it’s also a no-brainer at the price: buy one. For the serious wide shooter, you probably already have your poison of choice – but if you want to go light and still have the wide option – you guessed it, buy one (and a D3500). And yes, falling into the second camp, I’ll be picking up one of my own. MT

The Nikon AF-P 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 DX VR is available here from B&H.


Ultraprints from this series are available on request here


Visit the Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including workshop videos, and the individual Email School of Photography. You can also support the site by purchasing from B&H and Amazon – thanks!

We are also on Facebook and there is a curated reader Flickr pool.

Images and content copyright Ming Thein | mingthein.com 2012 onwards unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved


  1. alright, sir… maybe will have a try on it before deciding whether to get it for my d750 or not. Do you find the limited compatibility annoying especially when paired with older model?

  2. with this price, I guess people can’t go wrong to use it with FX camera as well as mentioned it can cover FX from 13mm onwards. One to have a look on as I need wide on some occasion only and do not wish to splurge big money on so called better proper FX wide angle lenses.

  3. Hey Ming,

    Did you ever use the Panasonic 7-14/4? I can pick one of those up for about $600 at B&H (using one of your links – I assume if I click a link it doesn’t matter what I buy, right? Doesn’t have to specifically be the topic of that article)

    This article got me interested in a decent wide-angle zoom, but something compact – which rules out anything for my Nikon FF cameras. I already have an Olympus EM5II, don’t have any Nikon DX though (otherwise I’d get this lens). Plus, the constant f/4 + IBIS of m4/3 would be very nice indeed.

    Anyway, just wanted to know if you have any experience with it and whether the links will still help you or not.


    • Briefly, yes; I didn’t have use for anything that wide at the time (and rarely do these days) but I remember it being decent on the 12MP bodies. Not sure about the new 20MP bodies though…

      Referrals: yes, thanks – hit the link at the top right in the sidebar and it’s all good, and much appreciated! 🙂

  4. Franc Sanka says:

    Great review of a light and cheap package ! I like to travel light and beside my more “pro” gear, my favorite camera when I want to carry the tiniest thing able to take great shots, is my several years old Panasonic GM-5. I get the 7-14 mm f/4 for super wide, but the 12-32 mm is my most used lens with it.

  5. Hi Ming! Have you tried this lens on your Z7? If you did, how was it?

    • A bit better than the D3500 because of the lower pixel density and more accurate AF, but all of the Z cameras auto-crop so you’re limited to DX only. I had no way to test the interaction between the Z7’s filter/microlens stack and this lens at the edges, unfortunately.

  6. I guess you’re a bit like me Ming. Whenever I buy a car I want no seller’s logo unless they pay me for advertising their name. And as far as tape goes, years ago when I was in school, there were practically no black cameras available. Only a few very high end rangefinder Leicas and Nikons. So, we used to cover them up with black tape. It was a time consuming chore if done correctly. Camera manufacturers wondered, ” why would anyone possibly want a black camera?” Well, it seems the “pros” did and like any good amateur, we wanted that too. If you wore black shirts or sweaters and the camera around your neck,it was far less conspicuous. Stealthy was the word! Now it’s the reverse order. You can hardly find silver cameras!
    I do miss the wonderful brassing of a well used black Leica M3………..

    • The dealer never pays you for advertising, so I agree – I’d rather take them off. Doesn’t help the logos and slogans tend to be rather naff, too.

      For me the black tape started off as something far more pragmatic: I began shooting watches, which are reflective objects, and I’d rather not have to retouch ‘NIKON’ out of every case and bezel if it can be helped. Then it became anti-free advertising at the point my endorsement had value, and has stayed that way since. I’ll tape any brand I’m not in paid partnership with because I’d rather not advertise for free, or affect my relationship with other brands.

      I like silver cameras too, if only for the reason they tend to be bare or anodized metal and much nicer tactile objects than black ones (which are at best, coated metal or rubber, and at worst, plastic.) But faux-metal silver-painted plastic or metal coated with silver paint so thick it feels like plastic is just nasty. I’m looking at you, Fuji.

  7. derrick pang says:

    nice shots, as usual!

    Love this line!
    If you are not a fan of long reviews, then just enjoy the images, skim through the rest, and click the buy link at the bottom of the post.

  8. Love that product shot. So which is heavier, the D3500 or the iPhone?

  9. Ming, I am very sorry to hear about your injury (of course) but I am indeed glad that you are now venturing into my territory; small and light (and cheap, GRIN)..

    • I’ve always been there in some form or other – there’s always a use for a compact second camera solution…I’m just using it a bit more often than I used to previously.

  10. Alex Carnes says:

    And today the role of Ken Rockwell is being played by Ming Thein! 😉

    It’s true though. The imaging capabilities of some of this cheap plastic gear is amazing.

    • But with less saturation.

      Ken has always been mostly right, he’s just not been very good at explaining it.

      • Alex Carnes says:

        I know. His photos are quite disgusting!

        I suppose we all probably have to accept that the differences in image quality between cheap and expensive gear can require unrealistic viewing scenarios – 100% on a computer screen or with one’s nose pressed up against a very large print. I suppose things like shallow DOF (if you’re into that sort of thing) and insane autofocus capabilities can still cost a pretty penny, along with robustness and weather sealing etc.

        • The trouble is, shallow DOF always looks pretty much the same – why would you want to pay for a restriction in compositional flexibility?

        • Kristian Wannebo says:

          There have begun to appear phone cameras that make a rather better simulation of short DOF, with softening gradually increasing with distance – it can look nice enough to make one forget some artefacts.

          Some examples at:

          ( ..and don’t mind the joke in the URL.)

          • Edge masking remains the one giveaway though – what’s a hole, what’s in front, and what’s behind? Hair and foliage are particularly bad. Used within limitations it can present some new options, much like any tool…

            • Kristian Wannebo says:

              But it can make it a little less frustrating to only carry a phone camera.

              • Actually, I always liked the all-in-focus option for composition…you can do a lot when you remove depth cues…

                • Kristian Wannebo says:

                  that was how I mostly used (or *had* to use) my Fuji XF1 (until the shutter broke a second time after three years) and now my DXO One, with or without depth cues. But sometimes the background just has to fade…

  11. If your not actively engaging in physical therapy, you really should be, also you can’t heal if you don’t sleep enough.

    • Right on both counts. But when you live in GMT+8 and most of your suppliers/business are conducted in GMT-5 or GMT +1, and you have a four year old, you’re lucky if you get three hours a night…

      • Tsk tsk my friend, I’m sure I don’t need to inform of the long term consequences of such behaviour. Oh well hopefully you engage in clean living otherwise.

        • No time for fun unclean living unfortunately! Also, I could sleep more, but the next thing to go would be this site since it doesn’t really generate any revenue…

  12. Michael says:

    Inspired by this and the “crappy hardware” post, I came within an inch of buying a D5600 (need the swivel screen), listing the 16 MP Olympus M4/3 and lenses for sale, and banking the difference toward a competent camera for video. Acting totally out of character, I went to a store, handled the D5600, stored a few shots and a bit of video on my own card, then did a quick series of new photos on the Olympus. Saved, for once, by my own prudence. What a phenomenal 16 megapixels those are! It’s worth putting up with the atrocious menus and the obscure settings that cancel one another out – and the damned focus point that keeps being moved by mishandling. Guess I’m stuck in place. But $546 less impoverished.

    • That’s not a bad thing. The Nikons all look like crap out of the box though; no idea why they don’t set them up for better jpegs to begin with…you’d think first impressions matter and all that. 😛

  13. “,,,, by relaxing one or two of the usual design constraints….”; ahh yes…choosing priorities is wonderfully rewarding.

    • It is too bad most people try to have everything and are subsequently disappointed… 🙂

      • This is very true. I’m an Architect and the whole situation revolves around sorting and choosing and, in some sense, eliminating options and deciding all the things you won’t have, because once you settle on one thing, other things are ruled out. It’s really hard on people who come into the situation thinking that they will finally get everything that want, only to discover the process doesn’t work that way at all.

        A lot of life situations follow this pattern, although it’s not often that apparent.

        • I agree – it applies to most life situations. And I’d add one more thing: try to avoid regrets and wondering what if…

  14. Any experience with the 16-80 f/2.8-4? I hear it bests the FF 24-120 f/4 and is quite a bit lighter. Might be a good complement to this one for DX. I got the 10-20 a couple weeks ago and have been similarly impressed. It’s all I need as I am usually just goofing around at those focal lengths and have never been willing to invest in expensive, heavy zooms. Widest I had was an old 20 AI that I rarely used and finally sold 4 years ago.

    • The couple of 16-80s I tried some time back was not impressive at all – strange corner smearing and a lot of distortion. I didn’t honestly see much of an improvement over the 18-55 AF-P, and certainly not for the price asked. The FF 24-120/4 suffers from sample variation, but a good copy is really excellent – I’ve been using one of these for the last six years or so over the 24-70 variants.

      • schralpr says:

        Interesting, good to know. I was hoping it would be part of a two lens travel solution (along with a fast 50 for low light portraits). Problem is the cheap 18-55 does not have quite enough reach.

      • That’s unfortunate. Thought the 16-80 and a 50 f/1.8 would have made a nice compact DX travel kit; I like a bit more reach than 55…

        • So do I, but it wasn’t to be. There’s an earlier 16-85/3.5-5.6 that might be worth looking at; it seems to be discontinued though. Not sure if that was any good.

  15. Kristian Wannebo says:

    Typo ?

    > “There is very longitudinal chromatic aberration..”

    … very little longitudinal … ?
    – – –

    ( Just what I’d needed if I’d been in the Nikon camp.)

  16. Will this Nikon 10-20 lens work with my D700, D200 and D100 cameras? I’m not planning on buying anymore camera for a while.

    • Short answer, no – the AF-P motor only works with the newer cameras, and it’s a DX lens so it doesn’t cover FX apart from the ranges I mentioned in the post.

      • Thank you Ming for your prompt answer. I guess I just have to wait for my birthday so my wife can buy me a newer model.

  17. Sigh, life was so simple with my D3100 back in the day – lenses were an issue though and that was the main reason I stepped up to FX and I still enjoy FX. But the small and light solution has still eluded – the GR is fine, but getting a bit old and the new one is rather expensive. £300 or so for the D3500 in the UK. And knowing you can throw this around a bit without worrying too much is great, even better is that we have a full range of lenses. Frankly with DX zooms are much more useful than primes so seems we have a good solid range available here!

    • I think you’ve sold yourself on it already haha

      • Haha! Almost – priorities are sorting through the editing backlog, figure out where to move my photos to from Flickr (never liked it) and to shoot more in London with what I have. So LOTS to keep me busy with!

        • I have to say my editing time has dropped massively since finding my cameras do acceptable jpegs – limited now to curation and tweaking of the one or two edge cases requiring PS.

          As for flickr, to be honest – if it really goes down the tubes, I won’t be moving anywhere. The majority of my work these days is just for me and isn’t even shown anywhere. And that, for some odd reason, makes me happy. 🙂

          • Yea that is a massive plus point on the lack of editing. I’m hoping once this nightmare ends things are manageable.

            Good point on your work and flickr -wise words and great that the jpeg engines (plus some tweaking I assume) seem more up to the task. Lord knows how crap the GR one is.

            I also need to decide if to backup the best stuff onto cloud or not. Let’s see

            • I was actually surprised by the GR. Most people rate the monochromes very highly, but to be honest – Olympus and Nikon both blow it out of the water…

  18. Evan D McKnight says:

    Hi Ming, thanks for the great review. I hope the back is getting a bit better. Maybe this questions is better suited to another thread, but it goes along with the cheap and cheerful yet excellent image quality that is possible from the D3500 and 10-20 lens. For someone starting off on a budget (or just being stingy), would Nikon’s raw Capture ND-X software be a good in place to start in terms of investing the time to learn how to use it, or might it be better to try to get into a different editing system straight away?

    • I’d go straight to photoshop, or given how good today’s JPEGs are – set that up right and not bother editing at all. The problem with the manufacturer proprietary software is honestly – it’s both terrible from a UI/UX perspective, very slow, infrequently updated, and locks you into one brand. You’ll have to learn another package if you change hardware and then figure out which sliders do what and by how much to get similar results as before, which is definitely NOT fun.

      • Evan McKnight says:

        Thanks for the candid response. As a casual shooter I’m generally happy with the jpegs. I’ve tried a few month trial from capture one. As a total beginner the one thing I found was I could not save a poor image, but I could alter a good image to be different and perhaps better, but often I was happy with where I started if I did a good job in the first place. Will look into learning Photoshop. Thanks

        • The two things PS can do the rest can’t (including LR) are proper brush control for dodge and burn (local edits) and sequential editing – and it’s so much easier.

        • I use both NX-D AND a really old version of Photoshop that still does all I ever need. I would never do sophisticated edits with the slow cumbersome NX-D, but I do use it to set white balance and convert the RAW files. To me, I get a little extra sharpness when I convert using the “better quality 2013” noise reduction option (with sliders set to 50, 50, 20, 20). Then just open it as a tiff in photoshop.

          • This used to be the case, but later ACR versions and smart sharpening have improved to the point that the results are better than NX-D (and there are less steps involved). The one thing NX does that some people find useful is faithfully translate camera profiles, or use them as a starting point but with better acuity. PS does whatever adobe feels like profile-wise, and it’s usually nothing like what you’d expect unless you create your own. They’re getting better in this regard too, but it’s still a bit of a mess.

  19. I have a nine year old daughter. Watching her grow up has been the single number one most positive influence on my photography hobby. She is not restrained by the constant echo of you can’t… She just has a go at it with the materials at hand. A few bits of string, paper, crayons and what not. Hours and hours of satisfaction.

    Certainly the motivation of your back pain has been an influence but I am betting your daughter has also turned things around and shown dad a thing or two.

    Thanks for the review and wonderful images. Useful!

    • I wish mine was satisfied without an entire mountain load of cheap nasty plastic crap that her grandparents shower on her… 😦

      • Many feel your pain! We’ve been strict with the grandparents and other relatives and it’s worked well. Buying experiences (riding a unicorn (horse in drag), having her face painted, going to a tourist attraction etc.) has been a much better option, as has us buying her simple toys from the local charity shop and putting the rest of the money into premium bonds for her. Be strong, kick grandparent arse, and good luck!

  20. Hi Ming, may I know what kind of tape you use to cover the logos on your cameras? Do you ever have the issue of the logo’s white paint peeling off together with the tape? Cheers!

  21. It’s really good to see great pictures with a budget lens – it helps to remind us all that one doesn’t need the top of the range equipment all of the time. Unfortunately I would never go back to a OVF, but if Nikon would release a few lenses for the Z mount I might be tempted to move across.
    “… for whatever reason, in this industry light and small is usually also synonymous for ‘entry level’ and ‘cheap’. ”
    This is a real pet peeve of mine – I would happily pay *significantly more* for a smaller and lighter product. I bought two Panasonic GM5s at full price and would buy an updated version tomorrow at a higher price, even if all they did was update to the latest MFT sensor and fix the electronic shutter limitation at 1/500 up. If Panasonic were to release a full frame GM5 equivalent (i.e. pretty much as small as is physically possible based on the sensor, mount, screen, and EVF), then I’d happily pay, say, a 50% premium on the price of their oversized SR1. And don’t get me started on the latest generation of mirrorless lenses…..

    • Sometimes a lot of people forget I can still compose even if I’m not using a Hasselblad 😉

      I’m waiting for the 20/1.8 and 80/1.8 Z lenses – if the 50 is anything to go by, they should be both spectacular and sensibly sized/priced. The f2.8s are monsters size and price-wise and not so good ergonomically. The body though is still an excellent small, high grade body – I can’t think of many improvements and even most of those are firmware/behaviour related rather than physical.

      I really liked the idea of the GM5s, but found them too small – the EVF doesn’t have enough shading and is also tiny, which makes it not so useful – kinda like the RX100 series. A good idea but in practice I always felt it to be fiddly and delicate and landed up using the rear LCD. There is probably a sweet spot that balances size and comfortable ergonomics, which I think is somewhere around the D3500/Z7/E-M1II size…

      • The GM5 controls are fiddly to use, but I could (and still do) take it on work trips, because it fits easily in a laptop bag and doesn’t give the impression that I’m more interested in taking pictures than in actually attending whatever meeting I’m supposed to be there for, which is what happens when I pull out a larger camera 🙂 There’s unfortunately a trade off between ergonomics-of-holding-in-hand-to-shoot and ergonomics-of-fitting-into-a-convenient-space…
        I’d rather have a small EVF than a small OVF though, I never used a Nikon 3xxx series but I used a Canon Rebel and I find even the GM5 viewfinder nicer to use – but that was a few years back and maybe entry level OVFs have got larger and clearer these days…

        • “…and doesn’t give the impression that I’m more interested in taking pictures than in actually attending whatever meeting I’m supposed to be there for”

          Haha…when that happened to me I realised I probably shouldn’t be in that line of work because it was actually true. These days I’m quite happy to travel lighter and carry less, though.

          Entry level finders are still rubbish. you’re not missing anything 🙂

  22. I am sorry that your back problems continue, but I do have to say that I really enjoy when you put up a post with images taken with budget gear. It is a great reminder to work with what you have in front of you as best you can, and just how important shooting and post processing skills are in the whole equation. I enjoyed and appreciated your Hassy work in the past, your recent work is just as enjoyable.

    Keep healing,


  23. raticus says:

    Me thinks you may also appreciate the 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 AF-P DX VR. I actually giggled the first time I used this lens (on a D5300), it was so freaking light, and the image quality so very good (at least to my eyes anyway).

    • I have to agree. I picked one up today, and despite owning the previous VR version, was surprised at the size and weight. First images look good, and I am looking forward to using it on an upcoming trip.


      • The previous (FX) one wasn’t great; the new AF-P FX one is impressive, and the non-VR AF-P DX version is identical but is really only a daylight or tripod lens given the slow maximum aperture.

    • Ah…well, then you’ll be pleased to know one actually arrived last week, and I’m in the process of writing up my findings at the moment…and yes, it’s really impressive.

  24. jean pierre (pete) guaron says:

    Simply cutting back to a max aperture of f4.5 slashes things like weight, cost, distortion issues.
    Years back, I picked up a D7100 with an 18-140 kit zoom. It’s long gone, but I kept the lens. And it’s remarkable how that lens performs, on my D500, shooting pet photography etc. I wouldn’t put it up again some of my other glass – but it cost peanuts, compared to the Otus’s, and it’s great fun to shoot with.
    Have fun with you 10-20, Ming. I have hardly ever wished I could go quite that wide, and when I am shooting with a w/angle I generally need a faster lens, so it wouldn’t suit my photography.
    But I do see your point. And (whether it’s your skill or the lens’s, or – as is more probable – a combination of both) the photos you included in your article certainly make the point!

    • I too never really see this wide natively, but I can find the use for it if I have it – I just can’t justify buying say a 14-24 unless there’s a commercial justification behind it. But the 10-20? Sure, why not?


  1. […] 11. Wider please, but on a budget: the Nikon AF-P 10-20mm f4.5 … […]

  2. […] series was shot with a Nikon D3500 and AF-P 10-20/4.5-5.6 DX VR, and post processed with Photoshop Workflow […]

  3. […] series shot with a Nikon D3500, AF-P 10-20 DX VR, AF-P 18-55 DX VR II, AF-P 70-300 DX VR. SOOC […]

  4. […] little while ago, I reviewed the other end of Nikon’s discount spectrum: the equally-a-mouthful AF-P 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 DX […]

%d bloggers like this: