Nikon AF Primes

[terry_evans3]

Hello,

 

I want to purchase three primes for a new DSLR. I would like to cover the

focal lengths from slightly wide to 85mm-100mm. For the most part, I shoot

informal portraits and historical buildings and old barns, but mostly people.

I just assume the 85mm 1.4 will be one to get. I have a 100mm 2.5 ais that I

am keeping, unless there is a better choice then I will sell it. I will use

these lenses on either an S3 or D200.

 

My goal is to have primes that are undisputidly Nikon's best.

 

Thanks,

 

Terry

[klix]

28mm/1.4 AFD

 

Noct

 

85mm/1.4 AFD

[walterh]

Yes good suggestions. In addition the 28f2.0 AIS is nice and the 35mmAIS f1.4.

 

The 105mm AFD DC f2.0 is a great lens but so is the lens you have already. If you get a chance to try out the DC lens see yourself if you like it enough to spend extra money.

[terry_evans3]

KLIX, what do you mean by noct? Are you saying that I don't need anything in between the 28 and 85? What are your thoughts on the 50 1.4? Also, are you in favor of primes? I wondered about two zooms, but wanted the best glass I could get for portraits, and assumed it would be primes. Thanks

[Ed_Ingold]

A 24/2.8, 35/2 and 50/1.4 would give you the DSLR equivalent of the traditional PJ set of 35/50/90(75). A 60/2.8 Micro is closer to the equivalent of 90mm, but is two stops slower than the 50/1.4, bulky and slow to focus. There's not much difference between 75 and 90 anyway. The 85/1.4 is an excellent lens, especially for portraits with film. It is a little long for that purpose on a dSLR.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

'Noct' is shorthand for the 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor:

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/ais5812.jpg

[lilly_w]

Noct = 58mm f1.2 Nocturnal. You'll have to open your wallet wide for this one.

 

Much has been written about the virtues of the 105/2 DC, along with the 85/1.4, both of which are superlative.

 

I'm not familiar w/ a 100/2.5. Perhaps you meant 105/2.5? That, too, is a fantastic lens, so much in fact that I've acquired two; the old-school P-C version and an AIS. Portions of the following are from a previous thread comparing the 105/2 DC with the 105/2.5 (Gauss): I find the 2 DC more pleasing as it relates to color saturation, sharpness and out-of-focus areas even without utilizing the DC feature. Wide open to 5.6 or 8 I would opine that the 2 DC has the upper hand on all fronts, though not necessarily by a wide margin. It depends on viewing circumstances: print-size in particular and distance. The finest qualities of the 105/2 DC would be lost in smaller prints. Purchasing that lens strikes me as making a simultaneous commitment to large prints, where the lens shines.

 

The 2.5 is a very fine lens without having to 'bust the bank'. I don't undertake the side-by-side testing and therefore cannot offer a clinical comparison. If I'm concerned about theft, size/weight, abuse, etc. I reach for the 105/2.5 w/out hesitation.

[terry_evans3]

Could I also get your opinions on the 17-35 and 17-55? How would they be for covering wide to normal focal lengths? Thanks

[Ed_Ingold]

I have the 17-35/2.8 AFS, which I use in preference to primes (which I also have). It is very sharp and fast, with low distortion. It also costs twice what the 24/35/50 primes I mentioned would cost all together. The 17-55/2.8 AFS is supposed to be equal to the 17-35, but with a better range for a DSLR. The 17-35 goes back to my film days, but I would buy the 17-55 today. You need something near 17mm to considered wide angle on a DSLR. This lens is considered better than the 18/2.8 prime it replaces, and not much more expensive either.<div></div>

[jeffrey_kempster]

I have a 35 AF f2 and a 85 AF f1.8. Great lenses. I only need a wide prime to complete my outfit. I find these two cover a lot except wide. I want the 20 AF 2.8 for wide unless nikon comes out with a digital prime (doubtful). It's just a little to expensive for me right now.

[terry_evans3]

Edward,

I love the idea of the 17-55 with 85 1.4 and my 105 ais. That would pretty much be all I need. But, the Nikon lens survey by Bjorn Rorslett rates the 17-55 a 3 out of 5 on the S3, which I thought about getting. He rates it a 5 out of 5 on a D200, my second choice. He does rate the 17-35 a 5 on the S3. I really don't understand the details.

 

If my new lenses would perform better on the D200, I would chose it. I am shooting an S2 now and very pleased with color and especially jpegs. I like the build quality of the D200, but am affraid that I will have to spend too much time at the computer processing, which I don't really like.

 

This investment is subustantial for me, so I want to get it right.

 

Thanks,

 

Terry

[mark_crown2]

Terry

 

For goodness sake don't get a Nikon 24mm 2.8 AFD - it dosn't do too well on digital unless you want to spend a lot of time at the computer in Photoshop or some other image tweaking device. It is a sharp lens, but it can flare both externally on the front element and there are traces of flare from the chip inside the camera too on the rear element. Fringing seems to be a problem too.

 

I'd go with some of the other posters here and get yourself one of the better AFS zooms which are designed for digital use.

 

The AF 35mm f2 seems to fare better on digital however.

 

I honestly think that you would be disappointed with the 24mm 2.8 AF.

 

Mark

[terry_evans3]

Mark, thanks. I have the 24 2.8 that I am getting ready to put on ebay, along with a 35-70 afd, 85 1.8 afd, and 50 1.8 afd. I really thought the lenses were ok until I tried the 105 2.5 ais, now it's hard to settle for less. What are your thoughts on the 17-55 S3 rating mentioned above? Thanks

[klix]

Hi Terry - as others have stated, Noct = 58mm/f1.2. I do like some prime lenses, but mostly on the longer end or macro (85/1.4 AFD, 105/2.5, 300/4 AFS, and 55, 60, 90, 105 and 200mm macros).

 

On the wider end, the 17-35mm/2.8 AFS pretty much takes care of most of my needs. If you are all-digital, I'd recommend the 17-55mm (I still shoot film, thus the 17-35mm).

 

IMO, for a D200 or S3, a 17-55mm, 85/1.4 AFD and a 70-200mm/2.8 AFS covers most needs. Later you can add something wider, something longer and a macro lens -- should you need those things.

 

Cheers!

[robert_finkelman]

Terry -

 

I have been using Nikon cameras in my work as a fashion, protrait & headshot photographer since the early 1980s. Over the years, I have bought a sizeable collection of Nikon lesnses, and like you, my rule of thumb in buying was to only buy the best.

 

Having said that, here is the list of lenses that I own, and therefore represent the BEST lenses Nikon has to offer in each focal length in the AF-D range:

 

Primes:

18mm 2.8D,

20mm 2.8D,

24mm 2.8D,

28mm 1.4D,

35mm 2D,

50mm 1.4D,

60mm 2.8D Micro,

85mm 1.4D,

105mm 2D DC,

135mm 2D DC,

180mm 2.8D,

200mm 4D Micro,

300mm 2.8D ED-IF AF-S II

 

Zooms:

17-35mm 2.8D AF-S,

28-70mm 2.8D AF-S,

80-200mm 2.8 AF-S

 

Rob

[ilkka_nissila]

I would recommend the 17-55mm f/2.8G DX. I've gotten good portrait results with the 17-55. You can add the 85 on top of that if you like.

 

I think in the current situation the only Nikon wide angles worth considering for a DSLR are the 12-24 DX and 17-55 DX. The FF ED f/2.8 zoom lenses will work, but are unnecessarily large and expensive for a DX camera. FF wide primes will produce comparatively poor image quality since these are mostly 1970s optics.

[mark_crown2]

Hi Terry

 

Sorry I didn't respond straight away.

 

I've had 3 24mm Nikkors - all 2.8 versions at Ai, AIS and AFN. I currently have the AIS (and in my opinion, the best of the lot by far). When I purchased the AFN 24mm, I did a lot of research. I found a lot of disappointment with regard to all AF versions (AFN/AFD)

 

The only negative comments I could find were concerning digital use - I am a 35mm film user and aim to stay that way for as long as I can.

 

My experience with the AFN 24mm was very poor on 35mm. Some people on this forum doubt how lenses like the 24mm (which apparently uses the same optical formula as the AIS/Ai) could be so different. There is also sample variation to consider too.

 

My answer to this is to use the actual lens - and I did.

 

On 35mm the 24mm AFN flared badly - really badly. The Ai was slightly better but would flare in contre jour light. The AIS however is a paragon of virtue when dealing with flare by comparison IMHO. They are all very sharp, but when flare is so bad you might as well forget it. I could use the Ai version to take pictures of sunsets or of a veiled sun - the same with the AIS but the AFN - no way - forget it.

 

The AFN had lens coatings similar to the Ai - the AIS has significantly different (and better) lens coatings - the AFD might be better but the reviews tell a different story for critical work.

 

In other words, the optical formulas may be all the same, but differences in coatings (and samples) could be critical.

 

I've no experience Terry of the zooms (some manual focus zooms do very well on digital apparently) but in the course of my research many of those mentioned above were highly recommended as out performing the AFD 24mm 2.8.

 

When one considers that the current 24mm 2.8 has an optical inheritance from say the late 70's/early 80's, its not hard to reason that the design is no longer leading edge. Zoom design has been making real advances over the years to perhaps render primes obsolete.

 

However, what would happen if new primes were created by Nikon that brought the optical designs up to date? A new 24mm 2.8 in autofocus using the latest computations for glass / element combination is a tantalising thought - the lens designers would have a less of a problem than with a zoom. I wonder what a really modern 24mm AF 2.8 would be capable of?

 

Oh well, one can dream!!

 

Mark

[terry_evans3]

Thank you all so much. I sounds like the 17-55 and 85 will be a good place for me to start. Regards, Terry

[Uhooru]

This is probably way late, but I use an old 24 2.8 AIS on the D200 and get xcellant results.

Also the 50 1.4 AF is great. I also have a 55 micro 3.5 an 50 1.8 AIS which is good, but of

that focal length, I end up using the 1.4 as the go to. When used fairly wide open,its a lovely

portrait lens on the 1.5 crop factor of the D200., with good blurred backgrounds. Not as

nice when closing down. Its very very sharp on the in focus areas, I like it a lot.

[amarkin]

Terry, I own 85mm F/1.8D AF and 50mm F/1.4D AF.

 

85mm F/1.4D AF is very popular portrait lens; it?s fast and gives you lovely bokeh. It?s expensive, however. F1.8 is every bit as good except it?s a little slower and cheaper. with no visible vignetting, CA and distortion. See my 6 pictures; 4 street pictures were captured using 85mm F/1.8 lens.

 

50mm F/1.4D AF is a great lens too. It?s fast, it?s affordable ? a great lens for low light shooting. It does not have beautiful background blur you get with the 85mm lenses. Then there?s 35mm F/2D AF which is also a good lens according to various reviews. 28mm F/2 AI-S is a legendary lens, everyone?s favourite; I am planning to buy it soon.

AFS 200 mm f/2 ED IF VR G is an excellent lens but very, very expensive around $4K or so. There are two alternatives:

200mm f/2 AI-S which still cost around $2K or 180mm f/2.8 AF for around $650 brand new. I may buy this one too.

 

Noct is for nocturnal I think. He referred to the old 50mm F/1.2 AI-S. Don?t bother, buy 50mm F/1.4D AF.