Jump to content

Buying new Ai-S lenses in 2015


Ian Rance

Recommended Posts

<p>Has anyone else bought any of the classic Nikon Ai-S lenses brand new recently?<br>

I think that they are a real bargain for what you get - a high quality crafted item that is hand assembled and just as 'good as they used to be'. However as often said, they are available for cheaper prices used. Not quite so, as the new lenses differ from the ones made in the 1970-1990 timeframe by:-</p>

<p>SIC coatings - the latest lenses have VERY good modern coatings<br>

Different lube used - the latest lenses focus with a very fine feel due to modem lubricants being used.<br>

Grip material - the 'waffle' grip looks the same pattern but is a different material and works much better with wet hands.</p>

<p>I have picked up a new 24mm f2.8 and a 50mm f1.2 and both are giving me good performance. I had a 24mm f2.8 Ai but the performance was never that great with uneven sharpness and some flare, however the new production lens is much nicer with clear photos even wide open.</p>

<p>I think that these old but new lenses are almost a gift from Nikon - but they are not as popular as they should be.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Just had a look at the B&H site to get an idea of what new manual focus Nikkors are going for. The cheapest was $400. For me, there has only ever been one major reason for buying manual focus lenses as opposed to their auto focus counterparts, price. At those prices, there's just not enough reason for me to buy a new manual focus lens when there are used versions at a much lower price point, or more recent auto focus versions at close to the same price.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here in Europe, I found no stores offering them anymore; having them shipped from B&H/Adoramo seemed the only option, and the shipping and import fee makes it all a bit costly in the end. So, I 'have to make do' with eBay, and so far no bad experiences. Some are looking worn and well used, some look brand new; optics so far in all cases perfectly fine. And compared to the prices for the new ones (at least in case of the 35 f/1.4, 24 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.2) I paid half the price for each of them, so at those cost savings, I like to take the risk.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I bought most of my AiS lenses long ago, and sold many of them, mostly all zooms, so I still keep my favorite ones.<br /> In a second "big clearance sale" I got rid of many AF/AFD ones, changing to AFS versions, which I currently prefer over anything to shoot digital (well, with very few exceptions).<br /> I actually don`t mind so much about construction materials when shooting "seriously"; personally I find AFS lenses to be much better to shoot AF, and specially, with digital cameras.<br /> I love shooting AiS lenses for fun, in the same way I love shooting film RFs, vintage cameras, large format, etc. When I have to shoot under pressure or for commercial reasons, I always take a digital camera and an AFS lens (mostly a zoom).<br /> <br /> Don`t agree on that AiS lenses should be more popular; in fact, I`m surprised they are way more popular than I`d expect, maybe for other than pure photographic reasons, I guess. I`m not saying they are not valid, they are all perfectly loable. This topic would be worth a thread.<br /> <br /> BTW, I have always thought that my 24/2.8AFD is better than my 24/2.8Ai, for the same reasons you mention; more clarity, more contrast, less flare wide open. They are supposed to share the same optics, but never tested them side by side. Too much work to add another test...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Currently, in the US, Nikon's website lists 8 Ai-S lenses as still available new:<br>

20/2.8 $675<br>

24/2.8 $540<br>

28/2.8 $540<br>

35/1.4 $1165<br>

50/1.4 $470<br>

50/1.2 $725<br>

55/2.8 Micro $410<br>

105/2.8 Micro $776<br>

In Europe, the last one is missing from the line-up. Briefly checking with B&H, the prices above may or may not reflect current retail. For example, the 105/2.8 is listed at $800, same price for the 35/1.4.<br>

Given the issues with viewfinder-focusing most of these lenses, aggravated by the fact that Ai-S lenses generally have a shorter focus throw than there Ai-predecessors, I don't consider any of these "a gift from Nikon" and see no reason why they should be more popular. I just sold my 28/2.8 Ai-S - I no longer felt the need for it, wedged in between a 24/1.4 and 35/1.4. </p>

<p>AFAIK, the Ai-S and AF versions of the 20 and 24mm share the same optical formula and thus I expect them to show the same performance characteristics - rather poor corner performance unless stopped down to at least f/5.6. I owned the 20/2.8 AF and briefly the 24/2.8 AF - the less said about either, the better. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Don't know, but I don't find my 24 f/2.8 Ai that bad. Yes, corner performance isn't top notch and it has a tendency to flare, but contrast and colours are quite allright. I find it a bit 'soul-less', it's a competent lens but it doesn't have much of a character, but I cannot really fault its performance.<br>

But I just already admitted in another thread that my ideas on lenses should be taken with proverbial salt mines :-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've got on reasonably well with my <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/135mmnikkor/135mm28.htm">135mm f/2.8 AI-S</a>, but it's certainly not a new one. It behaves better than my 135 f/2 DC did, anyway. It'll also autofocus with a modified TC-16a... I've been known to use it when I want a reasonably portable DSLR kit - I used to carry my D700 with a 28-200 in a small Lowepro toploader, with a 135mm in the front pocket and a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D in a small bag (that came with a teleconverter) tied to the strap. I've been less tempted to use the other two having got a D800, but the 135mm is still respectable.<br />

<br />

I recently bought a <a href="http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/eserieslenses/htmls/283550mm.htm#50mm">50mm E-series</a> because it's much smaller than the AF 50mm lenses I own - I never quite understood why Nikon (and Canon) felt the need to make the lens extend so far in front of the front element on the AF versions. If it needs a hood, ship a hood, don't make the lens bigger. (Same for the older 90mm Tamron.) The optics aren't brilliant, being essentially a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D equivalent, but for something small enough to use as a lens cap and a fraction of the price of the official pancake 45mm f/2.8, I'll take it - and it's perfectly fine at small apertures. It's probably not supposed to crunch when I focus, but that's ebay for you.<br />

<br />

I notice WEx in the UK have at least the 50mm f/1.2 listed new - although weirdly they claim AI rather than AI-s. I assume that's a typo unless they've had it a very long time! I'm a little tempted by something like a 20mm f/4 for when I don't want to cart the 14-24 around, but these days I guess I need a proper look at the new f/1.8.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>20mm f/4</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I owned that lens and it did perform better than the AF 20/2.8 in a direct comparison - at the time carried out on a DX body. On FX, be prepared for some rather serious vignetting - which is why I eventually sold it. Believe a certain KR is responsible for the quite high price the 20/4 Ai demands on the used market - which I profited from when I sold it.</p>

<p>Technically, my 75-150/3.5 Series E zoom is an Ai-S lens - and quite naturally, it suffers from the "loose as a goose" zoom ring syndrome. Now that I have the AF-S 70-200/4 VR, I can't imagine many scenarios that would have me pick the 75-150 though.</p>

<p>The only manual focus Nikon lens that stands a reasonable chance to find its way onto a camera at least occasionally is my 36-year old 105/2.5 Ai (and I won't be trading it for the Ai-S version) - certainly a lens with character.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't find my 24 f/2.8 Ai that bad</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the lot of Nikon AF f/2.8 fixed focal length lenses, I think it's the best in terms of optical performance; can't really comment on the Ai/Ai-S versions. Just can't name one good reason why I would want to own it. Back in the days, I wanted the Ai (or Ai-S) version but for some reason ended up with the Tamron 24/2.5 which I always thought of as being "less" than the Nikon. Many years later, I ran across a lens test that pegged the two against each other and revealed that the Tamron was actually optically slightly better (insert caveats about single sample lens testing).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Zeiss makes a comprehensive collection of AI-S lenses with Nikon mounts. These are no-holds-barred the best manual focus lenses you can buy. Besides the ZF and ZF.2 lenses, there are two Otus models at the top of the heap. For really high quality in short focus (< 50 mm) Nikon lenses, Zeiss is the only way to go.</p>

<p>Why manual focus in an auto focus world? It's easier to center and space the elements if they are in metal rather than plastic cages needed for AF. MF is preferred for shooting video - it doesn't hunt and can be pulled for follow-focus. In fact there is a whole other world of manual lenses for DSLR video, all breathtakingly costly. Zeiss video primes start at $5k each, and others are really expensive.</p>

<p>There is an increasing interest in making astronomical photos and landscapes. Only manual lenses have an hard infinity stop needed for this endeavor.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Agreed that Zeiss have a nice selection - although I thought they were AI-P equivalents (with electronics) so you get camera-based aperture control and metering on the low-end bodies. The Samyang 85mm f/1.4 certainly is AI-P equivalent. "The only way to go" may be a little over-stating it - the 14-24 keeps some Zeiss lenses (especially the previous generation) reasonably honest, although the field curvature is annoying, and having a zoom in that range is very useful. And then there's the price, of course. Not that I'd turn down a 21mm Zeiss if offered one. Though I'd take a 55mm Otus, it's not <i>that</i> much better than the 50mm Art Sigma, and autofocus is useful enough that I'm happy to have saved the money. Likewise the 35mm Sigma. Samyang/Rokinon seem to have done something interesting with their latest 135mm f/2 - if not quite up to the Zeiss APO. Should Sigma (or Nikon) do an autofocus 135mm f/2 that behaves better than my old DC lens, I may be tempted.</p>

 

<blockquote>There is an increasing interest in making astronomical photos and landscapes. Only manual lenses have an hard infinity stop needed for this endeavor.</blockquote>

 

<p>That's potentially a terrible idea unless you're really convinced that your hard infinity stop is completely temperature-invariant. While it can be a pain to do so in the dark (especially when I had my D700 cleaned during a meteor shower and was trying to focus using a 300D's pentamirror with no live view on a moonless night), I'd always try to focus on a bright star - or the moon - using live view rather than trusting the lens's tolerances. Autofocus lenses haven't given me a vast amount of trouble when doing this, although I appreciate that the longer throw of some manual focus lenses might be appealing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Zeiss makes a comprehensive collection of AI-S lenses with Nikon mounts. These are no-holds-barred the best manual focus lenses you can buy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As long as you stay away from the 25/2.8 - though it appears that pronounced field curvature is the culprit in making the lens test results look so bad. Depending on what one shoots with it, that might not be such an issue after all.</p>

<p>Technically, I suppose. ZF lenses are Ai-S and ZF-2 are Ai-P.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I still have some of mine that I use on a D 810 and D 800 without any issues. The ones I use the most are a 55mm f2.8 macro, primarily for non macro purposes, and a 35mm f2.0. I wish I still had my 105mm macro lens as I think it was sharper than the AF-D version that I now have. The older AIS version is far easier to focus manually than the AF- D version. To save money, buy them used.</p>

<p>Joe </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for the thoughts. You know what I think I find I get better focused photos with these Ai-S lenses than when I use my AF versions. Perhaps that is just because they make me think more - or maybe just my AF technique needs work.</p>

<p>Well I was out with it today and again the lens was working well. I will leave you with three images from the 24mm Ai-S which I bought brand new last month (grey import).</p><div>00dPJp-557755484.JPG.03b54730a53f97a2d193a746d4040648.JPG</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I can only assume that Nikon is not actively manufacturing these AIS lenses that are sold new - they are either assembling them from supplies of finished stock parts or the units were manufactured long ago and they are working off of existing supply of assembled lenses.<br>

Some of these lenses are still very good while others not so much. There are some AI/AIS lenses that have no AF peer optically and it would be cool if Nikon brought them back or at least made a modern version of them.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I didn't buy a new AI-s lens recently. The last Ai-S lens I purchased was a few years ago and that was a 400mm f/5.6 EDIF for about $650. That's basically the only truly manual lens that I use on a regular basis. The only AF counterpart is the 80-400 zoom that Nikon has. The lens is sharp, when I get focus, but in reality I feel that the newer AF lenses, even the zoom, is better optically for the digital sensors. The 400mm EDIF was made for film and was probably pretty sharp for the day. That said, though, I won't give it up until a AF version becomes available because it's very lightweight and compact. <br /> Here's my album on Flickr of pictures taken with the 400mm lens if you're interested. Note that most of the pictures are 80% quality and not full quality: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/sets/72157627642493184<br>

This one photo is the only one I have that's fullsize for your viewing pleasure. It's full frame and the second one is 100%. You can see how sharp it is. I'll include the one that I filtered with the noise reduction feature in lightroom.<br>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/15342147347/in/album-72157627642493184/<br>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/15357494578/in/album-72157627642493184/</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...