Nikon 24/2.8 AF vs AIS

[dave_osborne]

I'm thinking of switching my 24/2.8 AIS for an AF version. Most of the reviews

of the 24/2.8 neglect to mention whether the AF version is optically the same as

the AIS (which always gets good reports).

 

So what's the score..? 24/2.8 AIS & AF - much the same or not?

[dave_osborne]

Oh and while we're at it.. does anyone know about the 105/2.8 micro AIS vs. AF?

[Rich B NYC]

Dave,

 

I've owned the AFD and currently own the AIS. I know that they're optically the same but, for whatever reason, the AF version tended to flare a lot more than the AIS.

 

Neither is lacking in sharpness or contrast. I'd stick with the AIS unless there's some overwhelming reason to switch to the AF version.

 

Rich

[photo5]

The AF version works with AF bodies much better than the AIS version, in fact the AIS version won't auto focus at all with AF bodies. The AIS version has much better construction and manual focus feel than the AF version.

 

If you need AF, get the AF version. If you want better construction and manual focus feel, get the AIS version.

 

Dave

[akira]

Dave,

 

As Rich mentioned, the 24/2.8 Ai-s and AF are optically identical. However, the difference in mechanical constructions of both lens barrels could result in different behaviour in terms of flare or ghost.

 

The optics of Ai-s and AF micro Nikkors 105/2.8 are completely different. Some reviews tell that the Ai-s renders better image when mounted on D2X in terms of sharpness.

[albert_smith]

I stuck with the 24mm AIS lens when I got into auto focus because of one reason. The AIS lens has a more comprehensive set of DOF marks, and for me the use of a wide-angle lens is all about zone and hyper-focus. This makes the lack of auto-focus moot to me, since I set the focus via the DOF marks to make the most of the depth of field. It takes a couple of seconds to set 2 feet to infinity or 3 to 9 feet, so the DOF scale beats auto-focus for my type of photography with a 24mm lens.

 

One other thing. My 24mm AIS lens was 10 years old when I bought my first AF lens. It is still going strong, and only 1 of my handfull of AF lenses is still able to be used. You can't beat metal for longevity, at least that is my experience.<div></div>

[michaelschrag]

Dave,

 

Check this website (if you haven't already): http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html. Go to the lenses section. I find that Bjorn is generally on target with his assessments.

also:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GySM

[mark_crown2]

Hi Dave

 

My advice is don't bother. The AF 24mm 2.8 is much more flare prone than the AIS - in fact IMHO it's simply not acceptable in this area. Mine even flared in veiled sunlight and with a lens hood. I've had Ai, AF and AIS versions. I still have the AIS and it's the best of the bunch by far.

 

Look more closely at the reviews - it gets slated when used with digital cameras - even on the photo.net review. Even the Ai version I had for a little while before the AIS handled contre jour light better than the AF.

 

All the 24mm 2.8's I had above have the same optical construction, but there could be subtle changes in lens coatings that could make the difference. The AIS has the best coatings as far as I'm concerned.

 

If you want to go wide in AF, quite a few of the recent Nikkor super wide zooms get better results than the AFD 24mm 2.8, so save your pennies or part exchange the AIS for one of these.

 

Again, I say, don't bother - I think that you will be disappointed.

 

All the best,

 

Mark

[astral]

For a 'full' report have a look at:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_24_28/index.htm

 

There are users views on a wide range of lenses and cameras there too.

 

The performance of the appears AF version to be so-so compared to the AIS one. Whether some of its shortcomings can be seen in real use I dunno. I have one and rarely use it. Maybe when time permits I'll test it against a Sigma 24 I own ... and also rarely use. As an old fuddy-duddy I tend to use primes & manual cameras for quality work and zooms & AF cameras for convenience, with only a very few exceptions (namely AIS lenses on an F4).

[dave_osborne]

Nice one - cheers. I'm switching to AF for some lenses (seem to be missing focus an awful lot since switching to a D200) but was inclined to stick with AIS for 24mm and wider... so you've helped me make up my mind.

 

Now to work out if I need to keep my 105/2.8 AIS micro as well as the AF!

[walterh]

Dave all lenses show sample variation. Some producers give their products very thorough tests some do not. I might have a case of sample variation in the two lenses but I tell you my experience. I compared a late serial number 24mmF2.8AIS against a new 24mmF2.8AFD last year from a tripod on a D70. I tested cityscapes on an overcast day and on a sunny day. The AIS lens had slightly better contrast on all apertures. A shorter test a few weeks later on a sunny day on Reala 100 in an F5 gave similar results.

 

In the end sold the AFD. Not to say that the AFD version was bad. No - it was excellent- but the AIS sample just was better than excellent.

[astral]

I totally agree with Albert - With wideangles I tend to focus on the hyperfocal distance and /or exploit the depth of field as much as possible, so I don't see much point using AF with lenses wider than 28mm (on film). Also, for close-ups, the part of the image I want in focus isn't necessarily (or ever) what the little computerised man who lives inside my AF camera chooses.

[roland_vink]

"Does anyone know about the 105/2.8 micro AIS vs. AF?"

 

Unlike the 24/2.8, these lenses do have different optics. The AIS version has 10/9 elements/groups with CRC. It focuses to 1:2. With the PN-11 extension tube it gets slightly beyond 1:1.

 

The AF version has 9/8 elements/groups with CRC and focuses to 1:1 without extension tubes. At close range the focal length drops to around 80mm, so the close focus distance is a rather short 0.314m.

 

Read the reviews by Bjorn Rorslett for more information: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

[paul.droluk]

I have (had) both lenses... sold the AF version. On a D2x, both exhibit far too much CA to be

useful to me. I'm keeping the AIS version as part of my Nikon film camera collection. Pure

nostalgia I suppose, as it was one of my favorite lenses when I used to shoot 35mm film.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>I know that they're optically the same but, for

whatever reason, the AF version tended to flare a lot more than

the AIS. --Richard Borovoy<br>

</em><br>

This does not make sense to me but the AF version could have

poorer internal flare control as a part of the lower quality

construction. You note AFD which surprises me a bit

more since I would think the SIC coatings would improve the flare

and ghost control.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

The AF and most AIS versions will have Integrated Coatings (multi-coating)

while the AF-D and the latest AIS version will have Super

Integrated Coatings (super multi-coating). Two of my AIS Nikkors

have Super IC while all but one of my AF lenses are AF-D Nikkors

and have Super IC.<br>

<br>

I agree with Albert Smith, AIS and even more so the AI have much

better distance and DOF markings than the AF and AF-D. If I were

to buy an 24/2.8D AF Nikkor I would not sell my AIS for the

reason of those features he notes.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>The AF 24mm 2.8 is much more flare prone than the AIS -

in fact IMHO it's simply not acceptable in this area. Mine even

flared in veiled sunlight and with a lens hood. I've had Ai, AF

and AIS versions. I still have the AIS and it's the best of the

bunch by far. --Mark Crown<br>

</em><br>

Again, surprising and useful information: thanks for sharing this

Mark and Richard.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>The AIS lens had slightly better contrast on all

apertures. A shorter test a few weeks later on a sunny day on

Reala 100 in an F5 gave similar results. --Walter Schroeder<br>

</em><br>

And again. Thanks!<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

The 105/2.8D AF is noted for rather nasty bokeh and the free

working distance is poor. I lost interest for the last problem in

about 2 minutes when I first tried the lens at a camera store.<br>

<br>

Here is a table of free working distance that in includes the 105mm<br>

Micro-Nikkors...</p>

 

<table border="1" cellpadding="4">

<tr>

<td><strong>Micro-Nikkor Lens</strong></td>

<td align="right"><strong>1:2</strong></td>

<td align="right"><strong>1:1</strong></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>55/3.5 Compensating Aperture </td>

<td align="right">110mm</td>

<td align="right">55mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>55/3.5 AI </td>

<td align="right">111mm</td>

<td align="right">56mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>55/2.8 AIS</td>

<td align="right">113mm</td>

<td align="right">56mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>60/2.8 AF</td>

<td align="right">122mm</td>

<td align="right">73mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>105/2.8D AF</td>

<td align="center">---</td>

<td align="right">136mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>105/2.8 AIS</td>

<td align="right">244mm</td>

<td align="right">173mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>70~180/4.5~5.6D ED AF </td>

<td>244mm</td>

<td align="center">---</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>105/4.0 AI & AIS</td>

<td align="right">277mm</td>

<td align="right">172mm</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>200/4.0 AI & AIS</td>

<td>495mm</td>

<td align="center">---</td>

</tr>

</table>

 

<p>All measurements are mine except for the AF 105/2.8D Micro-Nikkor.

That measurement came from the Nikon brochure <u>Nikon World of

Close-up Photography</u>, 1994. Notice that the 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor

has the best free working distance at 1:2 buy a comfortable

margin and is virtually tied for best at 1:1 with the 105/2.8 AIS

Micro-Nikkor.<br>

<br>

For a 105mm Micro-Nikkor I can recommed either the 105/4.0 AI or

AIS (AIS Preferred with macro flash brackets and PN-11) or the

105/2.8 AIS. My 105/4.0 AI Micro-Nikkor exhibits beautiful out of

focus background rendition. I recommend checking this site for

details on these lenses...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ShunCheung]

There is no doubt that the AF-D version is very prone to flare, especially for a non-zoom. I used to have the AI version but sold that years ago so that I cannot compare with it any more. However, it does not make sense to me that two optically identical lenses have such different behavior with flare, especially since the AF-D is supposed to have better coating. (I don't doubt the claim, but I wonder what the reason is.)

 

If you do a lot of manual focusing, the focusing feel on the AF-D model may be a problem. The other advantages for the AI-S are the DOF scale and better build as mentioned. However, if you want a CPU in the lens, the AF/AF-D are the only options.

[lahuasteca]

"I'm thinking of switching my 24/2.8 AIS for an AF version."

 

Hmm. That's funny - I'm thinking of switching my AFD version for an AI or AIS. I've been

procrastinating for about 6 weeks now, go out to the field in ten days, & thinking of

ordering a bargain AIS 24 mm from KEH. Why? Feel, construction, and I do make use of

the more detailed hyperfocal markings. My body is FE2, have used the AFD for about 6

yrs., have no complaints with the image quality, but don't like the focus feel.

 

As a side-note, I've spent a lot of $$$$ on AF equipment and bodies, then made the move

to digital with a D70s (more $$$$$), but always seem to go back to the FE2 and primes for

the overland backcountry style of travel I do. Simplicity. Live and learn.

[rjacksonphoto]

I own and use both the AF-D version and the AIS version. Maybe I'm not very discriminating, but I don't notice much difference. The AF-D version is my standard lens on digital SLRs as it was on 35mm. I also find the construction of the AF-D to be excellent-- the same as the 35mm f/2.0 and 28mm f/2.8. Not as good as the 17-35 or 80-200, but much better than the AF-D 50mm f/1.8. Obviously, manually focusing the AF-D versions will not have the damped feel of the AIS lenses, but then again, the AIS lens don't have the autofocus capabilities of the AF versions.

 

Having said this, I'm not sure I see a compelling reason to change except to gain autofocus.

[Uhooru]

I use, what I thought was an AIS, but more probably is the AI 24 2.8. With the DOF available

even at wide open Apetures, there's isn't an overwhelming need for AF. It provides excellant

images.

[eajames]

Mike Schrag - your email bounced. Please email me. Hint: eajames@theoldschool.edu

 

Oh yeah, I should probably contribute:

 

I have the AIS version and find the build quality and focus much superior to the AF I've

"fiddled" with. With such a short focus through I don't see the utility in AF. I'm not a AF

person so others may disagree. Although I like my 24mm I find myself packing the

28mm f2.8 AIS because of it's stellar performance - even compared to the 24mm; the

20mm AIS comes along if I want an ultrawide. This makes the 24mm a bit of an orphan

but I keep it for those occasions that I take a 24mm, 55mm, and 105mm.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>With such a short focus through I don't see the

utility in AF. I'm not a AF person so others may disagree.

--Eric James<br>

</em><br>

For a lot of photography I agree. Under some situations, events

photography for example, I find AF very useful. Then again Id

want an f/2.8 zoom that covers 24mm rather than a 24/2.8 prime.<br>

<br>

Im not too impressed with my 24/2.8 AI on DX. I really have

not used the lens much but as I recall CA was a problem. When I

want that focal length (or close) I prefer my 25~50/4.0 AIS

Nikkor. It seem counter intuitive but the 25~50/4.0 AIS performs

quite nicely on DX.<br>

<br>

I really wish Nikon would design a new 24/2.0. Perhaps they could

shrink the 28/2.0 AIS and add an ED element to control chromatic

aberrations. Id also like an 18/2.0. This is both serious and

a bit of a joke, the shrink part that is.<br>

<br>

There are times when I miss fast, wide primes and then there are

times were I want a medium fast zoom, will stop down to f/5.6 and

use flash.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>Oh and while we're at it.. does anyone know about the

105/2.8 micro AIS vs. AF? --Dave Osborne<br>

</em><br>

Im currently liking my 105/4.0 AI and 70~180/4.5~5.6D ED AF

Micro-Nikkors on my D2X. Bjorn Rorslett gives the 105/2.8 AIS

Micro-Nikkor high marks on the D2X, (5) for near subjects.<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html"

target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html</u></a>

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[david_h._hartman]

"...on my D2X." SHB "...on my D2H."