I agree. Plastic is fine as long as it works. I have a couple 50 1.4 AF d lenses I use a lot. Very plasticy. Works fine. Still I prefer metal, just feels better. I like looking at Rockwell's site. Lots of good data, opinions aside.
I agree. Plastic is fine as long as it works. I have a couple 50 1.4 AF d lenses I use a lot. Very plasticy. Works fine. Still I prefer metal, just feels better. I like looking at Rockwell's site. Lots of good data, opinions aside.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 agree. Plastic is fine as long as it works. I have a couple 50 1.4 AF d lenses I use a lot. Very plasticy. Works fine. Still I prefer metal, just feels better. I like looking at Rockwell's site. Lots of good data, opinions aside.
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.
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.
I thought that w/ Nikons, the D only applied to flash 'D'istance, and D and non D lenses were the same.
For camera-lens interface function, that is correct - AF vs AF-D only matters for flash metering. But sometimes, Nikon redesigned a lens in mid life, and sometimes but not always that redesign corresponds to the D version.
A couple of posters in this thread report problems with more recent serial numbers: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.
I’m having nightmares just imagining using a AF Nikkor on a manual body.
Why? I use AF Nikkors on both AF and MF bodies and the reverse. I use whatever lens does the job I need it to with the body I want to use. For a long time I used a AF 300 f/4 on an F3 with MD4. Why would that combo give you nightmares?
Like one or two others the optics have advanced quite a bit since AIS lenses hit the market place, but the build quality of an AIS lens was usually infinitely better. At one time I had a 20mm F2.8 AIS lens and some time later a 20mm AF lens and it was easily seen the 2.8 AIS had been miles better. The focussing ring on the AF lens was, shall I say, - sloppy, possibly to give the focussing motor less work to do, but the absolute sharpness was missing. I believe the AF and AIS lens were the same optical construction. Go to some of the later AF lenses and the sloppiness has all but gone and the quality is well up to the mark. Even the 20/35/2.8 constant aperture, AFD lens is better than the AFD 20mmHey, i could get me a cheap 35 D F2 so i wonder if its better in terms of optics than the Ai-S?
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>>
..
Nikon also has 2 current 35mm f/1.8 lenses and a 35mm f/1.4. One of those 35mm f/1.8 does not fully cover the 24x36mm film or "FX" frame, the other does. All three lenses are essentially unusable on manual focus film cameras, and can only be used on cameras like the F4 and the N/F90 in program and shutter priority modes.
Isn't Nikon "compatibility" wonderfully simple?
Basically if their AF lens has a physical aperture ring, it is compatible with most Nikon film cameras.
The 35mm f/2 AI-s used 8 elements in 6 groups. The 35mm f/2 f/2 AF-D used 6 elements in 5 groups and focused a bit more closely. On many "consumer" level cameras, both film and digital, AI-s lenses will mount and shoot, but only in unmetered manual mode, which is about as much "basic dark ages" as using a 35mm f/2.8 PC. Unmotorized AF and AF-D lenses will not provide autofocus operation on D40, D60, D3x00, D5x00, and D7500 camera bodies. The AI-s lens can only be used in program mode with the FG, FA, and N2000/F301 and only in shutter priority mode on the FA and N2000/F301.
Nikon also has 2 current 35mm f/1.8 lenses and a 35mm f/1.4. One of those 35mm f/1.8 does not fully cover the 24x36mm film or "FX" frame, the other does. All three lenses are essentially unusable on manual focus film cameras, and can only be used on cameras like the F4 and the N/F90 in program and shutter priority modes.
Isn't Nikon "compatibility" wonderfully simple?
Basically if their AF lens has a physical aperture ring, it is compatible with most Nikon film cameras.
At least up until the electronic diaphragm, even the G lenses were usable on an F6.
Precisely. If I carry two cameras (sometimes I do one color, one B&W, for... reasons) I have zero issue swapping an AF-D off the F6 onto the f2 or F3, and vice versa. My 85D and 105DC get used a crapload on manual bodies. They work a treat.
Gelded (i.e. no physical aperture ring) lenses with electronic diaphragm control can be more useful on fully mechanical cameras like the FM2 because without electronic linkage those lenses shoot wide open, rather than at the minimum aperture you get on the earlier, mechanically actuated gelded lenses.
Nikon's introduction of the FTZ (and previously FT1) adapters, apart from confusing some angry grognards as to why AF doesn't function on their adapted lens, quietly made pre-AI lenses a viable option on their newest mirrorless bodies. I still want a telecompressing FT1 adapter... but I think that ship has sailed
View attachment 297755
Pre-AI lenses are an option for Z cameras because they can be mounted with the help of the FTX or third party adaptor, whereas mounting them on anything newer than an F4 (or an adapted F5) has been impossible.
That the camera can't read the aperture doesn't matter much.
I have at least one copy of almost every 50mm they've made, one of these days I'm going to stick the Z on a tripod and do a 50mm shoot out comparison, and see what's what between the LTM, pre-AI, AI, AF-D and AF-G flavors. But I'll probably wait for the weather to improve, and it won't be reliably improved until April.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?