Nikon 35mm: AI-S better than D?
-
A
- Thread starter Odot
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Beautiful Tenba Messenger Bag
- Started by chuckroast
-
Want to Buy Shen Hao TFC617 A or B
- Started by djdister
-
Free CP40Y Color Printing Filtet
- Started by Roger Thoms
Forum statistics
Yeah, it is better optically but feels worse.
It really depends on what type of camera you are using. I use AIS lenses on some of my AF cameras but tend not to use D type lenses on my manual cameras, mainly because the focus ring on the D lenses is so small.
Im gonna use it on my FE2 but what difference does it make in image quality?
It is a little sharper across the frame. It will not make your pictures better or worse.
Ok so just to be clear, the 35mm D is sharper than the AI-s?
Yes - if all things being equal (which they never are) - sample variation and wear may tip the scale in one direction or the other.
If it would only be used on manual focus bodies, and never possibly be used on a auto focus body, I would never consider a af/afd lens. The focus throw is not dampened because the af motor in the body will spin the focus ring on most af/afd lenses.
I own a 35mm f2 AI and previously owned a 35mm f2 AF-D, shooting it only on manual focus bodies. I received the AF-D lens with oily aperture blades and had to get them cleaned. I made some of my favorite images with that lens, but eventually the oily aperture issue came back and jammed up the blades. I sold it as-is since the issue was recurring and I didn't feel like continually getting it fixed.
Of the AF-D lenses I've used, this lens is actually a joy to use on manual focus cameras. The focus throw is perfectly long and well damped to use for manual focus, and yes, optically it is slightly superior to the AI and AI-S versions. The challenge is getting a copy that will not develop an oily aperture so you won't need to repair it constantly.
Ken Rockwell noted this in his review of the lens... I think at some point Nikon modified the AF-D lens to fix the oily aperture issue, fixed it after SN 329006. If I were to get this lens again, I wouldn't get one that has a SN lower than that.
Of the AF-D lenses I've used, this lens is actually a joy to use on manual focus cameras. The focus throw is perfectly long and well damped to use for manual focus, and yes, optically it is slightly superior to the AI and AI-S versions. The challenge is getting a copy that will not develop an oily aperture so you won't need to repair it constantly.
Ken Rockwell noted this in his review of the lens... I think at some point Nikon modified the AF-D lens to fix the oily aperture issue, fixed it after SN 329006. If I were to get this lens again, I wouldn't get one that has a SN lower than that.
Why is it cheap? As mentioned, check the blades for oil. It is never ok to have oily blades as eventually it will cause the aperture to stick.
Also... if I was only going to use a lens on a manual focus camera, I would never get an AF lens. The D lenses feel with changing the aperture and focus is no where near as nice as the manual lenses. Nor is the build.
I have both and say:'they are about he same(very good)but my D is AF and that makes for much better focus.
I have the 35mm f/2 AI-S. It's super sharp, but tends to have a lot of ghosts if shot with the sun or a bright light source just out of the frame:
000097470022 by Aaron Alfano, on Flickr
This is seldom a problem (I kind of like it in this photo), but something to be aware of. I have no experience with the AF-D version.
000097470022 by Aaron Alfano, on FlickrThis is seldom a problem (I kind of like it in this photo), but something to be aware of. I have no experience with the AF-D version.
I believe the optical prescription is the same. AI-S will work on Nikon AF cameras manual focus and D lenses will work on Nikon AF cameras auto or manual focus. Except for my f/2.8 PC lens all my lenses are AF D lenses. The PC lens is a manual focus, manually set the aperture, and manually stop down before taking the photograph. Talk about your basic Dark Ages! <<grumble>> <grumble>>
'Sharpness' can be a bit of a red herring, especially if you're shooting film. Perceived sharpness of a film image relies on more than just the resolving power of a given lens.
The 35mm AF-D is a newer optical design which is more compact due to containing fewer elements and has a marginally closer focusing distance; plus the added utility of auto-focus and TTL flash support on newer cameras. In use, AI-s lenses have damped focus rings which makes the undamped rings on AF-d lenses feel a bit squirrelly when used as manual focus. If compactness and modernity of the AF-D version outweighs the physicality and price differential of the AI-s version, go for it. For me, owning the 35mm AF-D was mostly a function of it's compact size compared to something like the 35mm F1.4... not to mention being able to get one for under $100.
If you'd like to do an objective comparison of some of the lenses' other characteristics, you can find them here: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html
The 35mm AF-D is a newer optical design which is more compact due to containing fewer elements and has a marginally closer focusing distance; plus the added utility of auto-focus and TTL flash support on newer cameras. In use, AI-s lenses have damped focus rings which makes the undamped rings on AF-d lenses feel a bit squirrelly when used as manual focus. If compactness and modernity of the AF-D version outweighs the physicality and price differential of the AI-s version, go for it. For me, owning the 35mm AF-D was mostly a function of it's compact size compared to something like the 35mm F1.4... not to mention being able to get one for under $100.
If you'd like to do an objective comparison of some of the lenses' other characteristics, you can find them here: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html
"Versus manual focus 35mm f/2 F, AI and AI-s
This AF 35/2 (1989-today) is much better optically than the older 35/2 manual focuslens (1965-2005). Nikon made both of these lenses from 1989 through 2005.
This AF lens is sharper at the sides wide open, has less falloff and has none of the ghost problems of the manual focus lens for night shooting.
Nikon made both the manual focus version up throigh 2005, along with this AF lens."
From the great Ken Rockwell. And before anyone has a seizure and starts foaming at the mouth, consider if what he says is incorrect or not.
This AF 35/2 (1989-today) is much better optically than the older 35/2 manual focuslens (1965-2005). Nikon made both of these lenses from 1989 through 2005.
This AF lens is sharper at the sides wide open, has less falloff and has none of the ghost problems of the manual focus lens for night shooting.
Nikon made both the manual focus version up throigh 2005, along with this AF lens."
From the great Ken Rockwell. And before anyone has a seizure and starts foaming at the mouth, consider if what he says is incorrect or not.
Taken with 35 f2 D on a Nikon F4:
Well the afd is auto focus. This is nice. And, it's made from space age PLASTIC! I would go with a nice example of the AFD. I have always wanted a beautiful example of the 35 1.4, however I already have enough 35mm equipment I don't use.
Well the afd is auto focus. This is nice. And, it's made from space age PLASTIC! I would go with a nice example of the AFD. I have always wanted a beautiful example of the 35 1.4, however I already have enough 35mm equipment I don't use.
The film used, nor the subject matter, nor the final image doesn't care if the lens body is made of plastic.
I have a beautiful like new 35 1.4 AIS. I cannot remember the last time I used it, but it IS very nice! I think Nikon still makes it which is very Leica of them...
I have at times thought about having a photograph available to look at in the bathroom because he moves me.
Do you disagree with what he has to say?
I will look at his articles for amusement, out of boredom, curiosity just to see what he thinks about a lens or camera, or when I do not want to got to the store for a laxative. We all know from television that no man, no matter how smart of well educated, can go to the store alone to buy a laxative. It will be the wrong type, too weak or not strong enough. So rather then bother my girl friend, I get a photo of him on the iPhone and the mission is accomplished.
A better answer. I have thought having a PC lens would be good. I looked at Hasselblad PC options and decided that the best would be a FlexBody and then lost interest. I saw a Nikon PC lens offered on Photrio, but it was a 35mm PC and I prefer 28mm lenses. So I did a Duck Duck Go search for articles comparing various focal length Nikon PC lenses. Only Ken Rockwell articles came up. I would have preferred a several writers, but since his articles were all there were, I read them. In the past I found that he would get gungho about unimportant things and suspected he wrote about what was given to him by manufacturers rather than being open to real untainted research.
Generally Nikon SLR prime lenses are in the category of "they are good enough for all practical purposes and will not be the limiting factor on the aesthetic or image quality of your photographs." I would use either version without hesitating (I have the 35/2 AI version, or maybe AI'd). I used to get fidgety about the feel of using an AF lens on an MF body, but don't worry about it as much anymore. For prime lenses, especially wideangles, I use the DOF marks often, so if an AF lens has no DOF scale that is limiting.
Ken Rockwell has a tendency to say that the latest and greatest thing is SO MUCH BETTER than that which came before. Sometimes if you look at his web reviews over the years, you can see that he says lens Z puts lens Y in the trash, and then you read his archived review of lens Y and it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and put lens X in the trash. I use his website (his Nikon lens compatibility table is much better than anyone else's including Nikon's), but I take his opinions with a large dose of noise cancellation.
Ken Rockwell has a tendency to say that the latest and greatest thing is SO MUCH BETTER than that which came before. Sometimes if you look at his web reviews over the years, you can see that he says lens Z puts lens Y in the trash, and then you read his archived review of lens Y and it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and put lens X in the trash. I use his website (his Nikon lens compatibility table is much better than anyone else's including Nikon's), but I take his opinions with a large dose of noise cancellation.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |