Nikon AF-I vs AF-S Lenses

Hello,

 

<p>

 

I am seriously considering buying a AF-S 500mm f4 lens to replace my

manual 500mm lens. However, I know that the AF-I is also available and

wonder if there is much difference between the two types of lenses. I

am aware that the AF-S incorporate the silent wave motor but besides

this, are there any other improvements over the AF-I lens? What about

the optical and handling qualities of the two types of lenses? Is the

AF-S faster in focussing?

 

<p>

 

Last but not least, how much do you think the manual Nikkor 500mm f4

lens costs in the second-hand market assuming the lens is in mint

plus condition?

 

<p>

 

Any professional advice is appreciated.

It ain't professional, but here's my opinion.

 

<p>

 

<em>... the AF-S incorporate the silent wave motor but besides this,

are there any other improvements over the AF-I lens?</em>

I'm not aware that the AF-S underwent any substantial optical or

mechanical re-design (aside from the Silent Wave motor) from the AF-I.

 

<p>

 

<em>What about the optical and handling qualities of the two types of

lenses?</em>

 

<p>

 

Physical dimensions of the the AF-I and AF-S are about the same and

both weigh anywhere from 25-50% more than your current AI-P. So, the

tripod and head you're using now should be suitable for either of the

AF lenses, unless your current tripod/head only marginally handle the

AI-P. The AF-I lens uses the same 39mm filters as the AI-P, while the

AF-S uses 52mm filters. The good news is that 52mm filters are easier

to obtain than 39mm filters, here in the US.

 

<p>

 

<em>Is the AF-S faster in focussing? </em>

 

<p>

 

Yes, although I can't cite any specific numbers.

 

<p>

 

I guess the bottom line is that unless the AF-S is substantially more

expensive than the AF-I, the AF-S is a better deal than the AF-I.

 

<p>

 

Here in the US, the AI-P goes for anywhere from $3K to $4K, depending

on who is selling it. I have no idea what the market is like in East

Asia.

"... <i>the AF-S incorporate the silent wave motor but besides this,

are there any other improvements over the AF-I lens?

</i><p> I'm not aware that the AF-S underwent any substantial optical

or mechanical re-design (aside from the Silent Wave motor) from the

AF-I. "

<p>

According to the comparison chart at B&H photo's web site, the 500/4

AF-I's built with 10 elements in 7 groups, while the AF-S's built with

11 elements in 9 groups.

 

So it appears that the optical formula has changed. As to how much

better the AF-S might be, I don't know. I've never heard anyone claim

that the AF-I 500/4 is a crummy lens, though, so I wouldn't let this

alone drive my decision.

 

The AF-S is about 10% shorter and lighter, and 20% smaller in

diameter, than the AF-I so I wouldn't be surprised if the new optical

formula was developed to accomplish this slight shrinkage rather than

improve optical performance.

 

B&H's web page is at www.bhphotovideo.com if you'd like to check this

information out in greater detail, go to the "AF telephoto lens

comparision chart" section of the Nikon section of the 35mm section of

the photo section of their site :)

All three Nikkor AF-S lenses available so far (300/2.8, 500/4 and

600/4) are optically different from their AF-I counterparts. The AF-S

lenses are also all a bit lighter too; apparently Nikon is using some

plastic (or perhaps carbon fiber??) parts in the lens barrel. (I

noticed that when I was touching part of the barrel of a 500/4 AF-S;

it wasn't

drawing heat from my hand as metal would.) I think AF-S is a slight

improvement from AF-I. IMO if one finds a good deal on a used AF-I, it

is worth going for it.

 

<p>

 

Concerning prices in the US, B&H is currently (Oct 1998) selling a new

grey-market MF 500mm/f4 P for US$4200, so I wouldn't pay anywhere

close to $4000 for a used 500mm/f4 P. As far as I know, mint ones are

around $3500 or so and drops to the high $2000 range for those with a

lot of wear on them. I suppose the prices in South East Asia are quite

a bit lower.

Alan,

I have the AF-l and have handled the AF-S...IMO, the two are so fast that the apparent advantage of the AF-S was hard to really notice. The AF-S is quieter, longer by 1.5 inches, smaller in diameter by 1 inch, and lighter by 3/4 pounds. Filter size would be a factor if you have 39mm filters, the new lens takes 52mm. The bottom line for me would be if the prices were close, I'd probably go with the new design, but if there were substantial price savings I would go with the AF-l and not worry about the choice.

 

<p>

 

Optically, I think there is less of a difference (improvement) between the AF-l and the AF-S than the AF-l and the 500/4P, but that is just opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it :-)

Alan,

 

<p>

 

This isn't professional either, but I would first ask how often do

you want to change batteries? Meaning: I own and shoot a Nikon F5

and a N90s. I've rented 500 and 600 AF lenses. They wasted my

batteries - as much as one set to two rolls of film. I ended up (and

still do) manually focusing to save batteries. You may want to

consider staying w/ manual. Sell/trade the 500 for a 600 f/4.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

 

<p>

 

Quinn

It is true that AF-I and AF-S lenses tend to use up batteries, but if

you need to change batteries as often as every two rolls of film,

something seems to be very wrong.

 

<p>

 

A friend of mine has had an F4s for several years. Each set of

batteries would last 40, 50 rolls. He bought a 300mm/f2.8 AF-I last

year and his battery usage suddenly dropped down to somewhere around

20 rolls per set.

Shun left out the 400/2.8 AF-S lens that has been out for some time

now. It is approx. 3.5 lbs lighter, considerably smaller than the AF-

I 400 and does focus faster. I do not find it to more than 10-15%

faster. All the AF-S lenses have new optical designs and an iris with

more blades in it that render out of focus areas in a very pleasing

fashion. I can see the difference in my chromes between the AF-I and

AF-S 400. Nikon has used carbon fiber in the design as well, the

focussing rails for instance are carbon fiber in the 400 as is the 2

piece hood.

 

<p>

 

Battery usage with the F5 is no different for the AF-I or AF-S lenses

as far as I can tell, having shot approx 4000 rolls now using the 300

and 400. The one post of 2 rolls/set suggests something else is

wrong.

 

<p>

 

One major advantage of the AF-S lenses is the full time manual focus

capability when the switch is set to the M/A. This manual focus has

no lag in takeup that the AF-I lenses have. This can be used

effectively to save on battery life as well.

 

<p>

 

Happy shooting.

Hello eveyone,

 

<p>

 

Thanks to all of the above for your advice.

 

<p>

 

I bought the AF-S lens and shot four rolls of chrome today and am

impressed with the focussing speed. The lens hood is a bit long though

compared to the manual lens. And no, I did not have to change

batteries after every two rolls. I was using the NiMH batteries for

your information.

 

<p>

 

Yes, I like the M/A switch which allowed me to fine tune the focussing

manually.

 

<p>

 

Let's hope today's outing will yield some decent shots.

 

<p>

 

Thanks once again to all of you for sharing your experiences with me.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

 

<p>

 

 

Alan

Alan, a wise choice that you made. The AF-S is in my opinion a vast

improvement over the AF-I. The S version is lighter smaller and

almost the same size as the 500F4P manual focus version. And the

speed , terrific !! As a wildlife shooter this is the choice I would

make.

Cheers Rob Ha

Quinn F. Harry's statement about getting only 2 rolls of film per battery change might be because his F5 body was one of the early versions with a battery drain problem. I'd look into having it serviced. Brian P. Bower

I recall reading a review of the new 500mm AF-S lens in PhotoLife. The reviewer believe that this new lens was definetly sharper than the old AF-I or P lens. Just his opinion. No lab tests or other evidence was offered.