Old Manual Nikkor vs Autofocus Equivalent

[michael_pye]

Following on from my thread below. I have an old manual 50mm Nikkor 1.8. It

must be at least around 25 years old. It works a treat on my D80.

 

After 25 years Nikon optics must of improved so hence the modern day autofocus

50mm 1.8. must be an even stronger lens?

[erik_loza]

Was this meant to be a question?

[mharris]

Not sure it's a better lens but I am sure it's not stronger. Metal baby, metal.

[hughes]

If it works a treat who cares ?

[dave_lee6]

I doubt your older 50mm 1.8 is any worse or any better than a modern 50mm f1.8 AF-D lens. The optical formula should be the same. As said above, the MF Nikkors are built better than the AF Nikkors for the most part. Unless you really abuse your equipment however, this shouldn't matter that much. I have a Nikon 50mm f1.8 Series E lens that I recently shot with all day on my D80 and I was amazed how well it performed. And it only cost me $10. A Nikon lens is a Nikon lens.

[michael_pye]

Thanks, that was what I was thinking. Though, I thought after 25 years there was a chance the optics might of improved.

[bjørn rørslett]

The optics of the AF 50/1.8 are slightly different from the older MF lens. In direct comparisons I found the older lens to be significantly better in optical quality. However, sample variation never can be ruled out and my suspicion is that the newer AF versions are not built to the same standards as the lenses of the '80s.

 

There are several examples of older Nikkors performing better than the AF equivalents. Besides the 50/1.8, this applies to 20/2.8, 28/2.8, and 105/2.8 Micro. Sometimes, however, the AF model is a significant improvement on the MF version, such as the 200/2.

[ross nolly]

I find that the 24mm AIS outperforms the 24mm AFD by a long chalk on my D200. And my Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 beats both easily!

[jack_l3]

>And my Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 beats both easily!

 

Which aspect(s) of its performance are superior to the Nikkor lenses?

[studor13]

I have both the AF and MF versions of the 50mm f1.8 and as far as IQ goes I see no differences.

 

On a D70 it makes little sense to use the MF version since the view finder is so poor and metering is also manual. (try taking pictures of a lively 3 year old with it)

 

I'm only hanging on to the MF version because Dr Rorslett gives it a 5+ on a D2X/200. I'm going to hold him to his review when I get the D3. (sample variations will not be excused) ;)

[carl_becker2]

It would be impossible to hold Dr Rorslett to a review that does not exist yet. There is no telling how an older lens will perform on yet to be released camera bodies. I hope well as I have older full frame lenses also.

[mawz]

@Bjorn: As far as I'm aware, the current AF design uses the exact same optical formula as the Series E and late AI-S 50/1.8's. QC has headed downwards with each iteration of the AF design, with the current being the worst for sample variation. I suspect there's also looser tolerances in the focusing helical on AF lenses to prevent binding, at the cost of a little more wiggle to the helical.

[icuneko]

Unless you are a pro demanding exacting reproductions at large enlargements, I doubt it you'd notice much difference between old

and new lenses except that some--not all--newer ones have more

polycarbonate (plastic) in them.

[tonybeach]

Adam, I have two copies of the newer 50/1.8, and they perform identically.

 

Micheal, a lens can be sharper but that will do you no good if it isn't critically focused. Getting accurate focus will make a bigger difference unless you stop down the lens to create a focusing fudge factor.

[ross nolly]

Jack; I've found that the Sigma 15-30mm f3.5-4.5 is sharper than the 24mm AFD. Also for some curious reason the 24mm AIS is sharper than the AFD equivalent. Why, I don't know. I wasn't rubbishing every Nikkor lens!

 

I've tested the Sigma & 24mm AFD at all equvalent apetures and the Sigma is noticably sharper. I'm not biased either as the 24mm AIS is one of my favourite film lenses. because of this I decided to buy an AFD to use on the D200.

 

The Sigma is not better in regard to flare and is a pain in the neck for filters. It's also a big unit! I'm going to replace it with either the Nikon or Tokina 12-24mm, but I can't complain about the Sigma's sharpness. Also it has always had good reviews re; sharpness

 

I use the 50mm 1.8AFD and the 180 f2.8AF on my D200 and they are razor sharp. I've also used the 50mm f1.4, 35mm f2 & 200mm f4 (all AIS) lenses on the D200 and all are really sharp.

 

I hope this clarifies my last post

[jack_l3]

Thanks, Ross. It's been my experience that many of the Sigma wide primes made in the early '80s and '90s are sharp. However, later versions seemed more prone to flare, and none of the zooms from those years were comparable to Nikkor. Sounds as though they may have made some gains in this area.

[roland_vink]

The current AF 50/1.8 lens has optics which originated with the series-E 50/1.8. The same optics were then used on the compact AiS 50/1.8 and all following AF versions. Apart from improvements in coatings and sample variation, there is no difference in performance.

 

The Ai 50/1.8 and early AiS 50/1.8 with a larger barrel and recessed front element share a different optical design, which according to Bjorn, is superior to the later lens. However, all of the slower 50mm lenses, including the AI 50/2, are excellent performers.

 

I'm sure it would be possible to improve the design further - in wide open performance and background rendition. As you say, we now have 25 years of new technology to draw on, but I think that is unlikely in the short term. The newest 50mm lens for the Nikon mount is the Zeiss ZF 50/2 macro lens and it's possibly the best, but it is big, heavy and very expensive.

[ross nolly]

Jack; The 24mm AFD seems to have a mixed reputation on digital cameras. As for the Sigma, I might have got a good sample..

[studor13]

Roland, thank you for that very clear explanation of the various designs on the 50mm.

 

I guess I am wondering a bit though as to why the optical formula was changed and kept if the earlier AIS is "significantly better" than the current version(s).

 

In particular, I am very much/somewhat disappointed in the bokeh produced by the AF version.

[jack_l3]

>I am very much/somewhat disappointed in the bokeh produced by the AF version.

 

Was that a survey answer? :) All the Nikon 50mms I've shot have poor bokeh. The early single-coated glass might be better (I haven't tried it), but everything from the AI forward - including long-nose, compact, 0.6M and 0.45M minimum focus, and Series E - are harsh.

[tonybeach]

"All the Nikon 50mms I've shot have poor bokeh."

 

Here's something that surprised me a little yesterday when I saw it: http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/p795621890/?photo=h2407ADF0#580921354 The Nikkor 17-55/2.8 looks pretty impressive in this regard to me.

[jack_l3]

Anthony, my statement wasn't accurate. I was thinking about using these lenses wide open, but I neglected to say that. In fact, I think the 50mm lenses aren't so bad when they're stopped down a little. Of course, when you shoot that way, the background also isn't so unfocused.

 

I did look through those "tin can" files earlier today, but wasn't sure exactly how to correlate them with the discussion. I've used a few really crappy lenses in the past (when I first started shooting), and some produced images similar to these shots. In particular, I remember a f/4-5.6 midrange zoom branded Quantaray that produced very nice bokeh on the long end. The background had to be some distance behind the subject to achieve that, but then it would turn into a smooth, creamy, nondescript blur. Anyway, the background in the "tin can" images isn't really obliterated in the way I would like. That might be because the lens is f/2.8, or perhaps the distance from the can to the background isn't so great. In any event, I'm not able to make a reasonable assessment. I will say that the few rounded highlights in the image don't have a "donut" appearance. That's a good sign, as the donuts represent one of the major defects that appear when the 50mms are opened up.