AF, AFD lenses good bargains?

<p>My camera bodies have the screw drive to use non AFS lenses. I use mostly AFS or HSM lenses and wonder if D or non D lenses are a good investment? They certainly are much, much cheaper compared to newer lenses. Anyone still using older lenses? Having just purchased a 105 D micro that I'm completely satisfied with I'm tempted by a used 85 f1.8 non D in EXC+ condition for a nice price. Don't know whether I need D or not?</p>

<p>Mark, it all depends. Whether they are a good "investment", nobody can really say - as the number of bodies sold with only AF-S drive, the market for the AF/AF-D lenses will eventually shrink, putting prices under pressure. But, well, I buy lenses to use them - they're not investments.<br>

There are plenty people still using these lenses. They're not that old (some are still available new); and plenty people use the even older Ai and AiS manual focus lenses too. As with current lenses, there are gems and there are lesser lenses - and likewise, some are cheap, some are not that cheap at all. Sometimes, the older lenses are better than the new ones, but more frequently it's the other way around. Some of the older lenses (in my view, including the 85 f/1.8) have a quite different colour rendering than newer lenses. The newer lenses tend to be more satured, and have more contrast.<br>

In case of the 85 f/1.8 - the new AF-S 85mm f/1.8G just happens to be quite a lot better than the old one, and really worth the extra bit of money it costs. The older AF/AF-D design is not bad, but it's not a superstar either. It depends really on what a "nice price" is - without knowing, it's impossible to say if it's a good deal.</p>

<p>The D designation is not vital; it helps a bit for the matrix metering and iTTL flash - but its lack won't cripple you.</p>

<p>Hello Mark, as far as I know older wide-angles from the film age are so so, digital sensors feel happier with a slightly different design. But the longer focal lengths are ok, you can find a good overview in http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html.<br>

I use an older AF-D 105mm f/2 DC, its a very good objective but when you look at critical details it shows its age. <br>

Success hunting,<br>

Jan</p>

<p>Just as cameras have changed in the past 30 years, so have lenses. New coatings, new CAD design, new kinds of glass formulas, VR, flare resistance, higher color saturation, better contrast, on & on. Modern lenses are clearly superior to the vintage lenses in that regard. If you are looking for a vintage look to your photos that's another thing. Myself, I won't spending big bucks on a camera and then try to go cheap on the important thing--lenses.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Some of the AF-D lenses are build as a tank... metal and glass... and some people like this a lot. From my experience are at least several D lenses that could be considered on modern bodies. My preferred are:<br>

85/1.4 AF-D<br>

105/2 DC<br>

135/2 DC<br>

180/2.8 AF-D<br>

On D700 35/2 AF-D was a nice lens but on D600-D800 it shows its limitation.<br>

What I do not like, even on D700 are: 20/2.8 24/2.8 and 28/2.8. </p>

<p>Age alone is less a determinant of IQ than design--something a close reading of Bjorn's lists makes plain. Some AFD lenses are stars, some are dogs. Surprised?</p>

<p>If shooting portraits, the softer, lower contrast look of a vintage lens might be an advantage. Sharpness is over rated for that.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Keep in mind that there is a simple reason that something is cheap: it is all about supply and demand. Something is cheap because it is not in demand, perhaps it is not as desirable.</p>

<p>Depends on the lens; telephotos tend to be pretty good, can't think of an AF-D telephoto that wouldn't be. Funny that the 85/1.8 came up... I'm selling my D version since I switched to AF-S and the only real advantages in the new version are sharpness at large apertures (f2.8 and larger) and AF-S focusing; drawbacks are considerably increased size. For me, the trade was worthwhile since I like to use the larger apertures and like the performance of the new lens using those, but if performance at f4-f8 was the goal, then the old lens would be basically just as good as the new one.</p>

<p>28-105 AFD is a bargain in comparison to a comparable modern lens</p>

<p>I'm gravitating more and more towards AF-S lenses - mostly because of the convenience factor (80-200/2.8 --> 70-200/2.8 VR; 18-35/3.5-4.5 --> 16-35/4 VR; 50/1.8D --> 50/1.8G; though for the first and second, VR was the major contributing factor and AF-S just a nice extra). For some of my lenses, however, there still isn't an AF-S alternative: 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR and 70-180/4.5-5.6 (for which I doubt there ever will be an AF-S substitute). </p>

<p>I agree with the previous poster on the 28-105/3.5-4.5. I also have the 85/1.8D and am quite reluctant to trade for the 85/1.8G - I expect to lose at least $200 on that deal and it doesn't seem to be worth it.</p>

<p>The 70-210/4.5-5.6 doesn't seem to get much love - by now I am on the third copy and each one has been optically fine (it's almost exclusively used on my wife's F100 nowadays though). </p>

<p>I don't like the 20/2.8AF - even on a DX DSLR the corners are quite soft at f/2.8 and f/4. I briefly owned the 24/2.8 - it appeared to be better than the 20/2.8.</p>

<p>I also own the much maligned 24-120/3.5-5.6 AF and 24-120/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR; both now almost exclusively used on the F100. I prefer the AF-S version - again for the convenience as I don't see a significant difference optically. They can be had for $160 and $300, respectively - quite a bit cheaper than the current 24-120/4 AF-S VR.</p>

<p>So, in essence, yes, there are some bargains - but also come at a "price" (older optical formulas not optimized for digital, convenience).</p>

 

<p>I would not say that most AFD lenses are an "investment" at least in terms of profiting from their sale at a future date. In terms of image quality vs. cost ratio, then clearly yes, many of the AFD lenses are a great buy compared to their AFS equivalents. In general the AFD lenses have a much better build quality, they have an aperture ring so you can use them with just about any Nikon D/SLR body, and they cost significantly less than the latest and greatest lenses even though some of them are equal to--or even outperform--their more expensive counterparts.</p>

<p>For a comprehensive list of Nikon lens ratings, check out <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1">Bjorn Rorslett's website</a>.</p>

<p>On my D700 I use and very much like:<br />-20 2.8<br />-35 2.0<br />-50 1.4<br />-85 1.4<br />-180 2.8<br />-20-35 2.8<br />-80-200 2.8<br /><br />I personally like the colors/rendering and have no problems with sharpness, vignetting or corner performance (stopped down). I like the handling and build-quality of these lenses and enjoy the price/performance ratio.<br /><br />But...I am not a pro, not a pixel peeper, not rich and maybe not critical enough....</p>

<p>The 50's and longer are very good values. I would not bother with the 24, 28, and 35mm AF-D's. The 20 is OK since there isn't really anything like it.</p>

<p>Personally I'd steer clear of zooms made in the AF/AF-D era. There just wasn't the technology in those days to make affordable aspherical elements that modern designs employ fairly liberally and to good effect. However some of the AF/AF-D primes can hold their own with almost anything made today, in fact the heavier construction probably means that they're better aligned (and will stay that way) than modern plastic-barreled lenses.</p>

<p>As Dan implies, there are a few "dogs" around in the early AF range. Those low-aperture wideangles are probably the ones to avoid. They're definitely built down to a budget rather than designed for performance. The AF Micro-Nikkors are good, as are most of the IF-ED telephotos and portrait length lenses.</p>

<p>It depends, for instance <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3824787">nick baker</a> wrote: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"28-105 AFD is a bargain in comparison to a comparable modern lens".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have both 28-105 AFD and 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR FX. The old 28-105 AFD was good on F4 and F100 but on D600 or D800 there is a visible difference between "bargin" 28-105 and the recent 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR FX. And the addition of VR is more than welcome. So I wouldn't say that this is a good bargain in you use high resolution digital body.<br>

Regards, Marko<br>

</p>

<h3 ><a href="http://www.fotospecialisti.si/5345,en_24-85mm-f-3.5-4.5g-ed-vr-fx-nikkor.html"> </a></h3>

<p>Thanks for sharing your opinions. I should have said good bargain instead of good investment. As a budget shooter I'm looking for good low cost glass. The new 85 f1.8g is $600 versus a super nice 85 f1.8 non D that I found locally so based on your feedback and opinions I'm going to get the non AFS lens and save some money. Next purchase will be a g lens though, it's time to replace my old 50 f1.4 ais lens. I find with age it is difficult to focus on digital.</p>

<p>There good on the old camera,but they can't hold up on myD600</p>

<p>I had a D70s and used an AF-D 24-85mm f/2.8-4 Macro and served me well for about four years, with shooting bands is dark nightclubs often, I traded it in for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC (and shortly after traded to a D300s). I always felt I got my moneys worth from the D lens.</p>