Nikon D700 and Nikkor AF Film Lenses?

[david newsom]

<p>Hello All-</p>

<p>Sorry for any redundancy here. I realize several have already approached the issue of old film lenses on the D700, but I'm looking for a broader debate. I recently purchased (and love) the D700. Currently, I'm using an old, excellent, Nikkor AF 20-35mm/2.8 wide zoom, and an old AF Nikkor 80-200/2.8 zoom. So far, so good. But, what I'm wondering is this: What am I losing by using these older lenses and not newer, FX lenses? Is it merely speed? Do the FX lenses speak better to the full-sensor lenses?<br>

I ask because I'm considering purchasing a few more older AF Nikkor lenses (such as the old 35-70/2.8 zoom), since the prices are so good, but I'd like someone who's not a dealer to break down why this might not be such a good idea.<br>

Thanks in advance.<br>

David Newsom<br>

www.david-newsom.com</p>

[niccoury]

<p>Hey David,</p>

<p>You're not losing much at all. I use the 20-35 professionally on my D700 for newspaper work. I also use a 28-70. Both of which were designed during the film era. I've heard the 35-70 is great too.</p>

<p>Anyone who tells you that you have to have the new stuff is full of it. Plenty of people use old MF and older AF lenses on both the D3 and D700. </p>

<p>Only older lenses I've heard has some problems is the 14 f/2.8D, but that's a speciality lens. On the other hand, I think the new 60 AF-s is far superior to the older D version.</p>

<p> </p>

[alvin_lim5]

<p>Hi David, older lenses should work just fine with your D700 and at today's used prices, they will be real value for money.</p>

[paul hart]

<p>One of things that persuaded me to sign up with the D700 was the vast number of cheap, high quality, older Nikkor lenses that are still compatible with it.<br>

Your post is about older AF lenses, and this isn't AF, but my favourite from my little collection of old lenses is the 105/2.5</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>If I am not mistaken, aside from the AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR, AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4G ED VR, and AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR, and some PC-E lenses, the only "FX" lenses introduced after the D3 was announced are the 50/1.4G AF-S, the 14-24/2.8G AF-S and the 24-70/2.8G AF-S - all other "FX" lenses date back to the "film aera".<br>

So, by using the older AF lenses, you are missing out on AF-S and on the new nano-coating.</p>

[niccoury]

<p>Yeah, but the 17-35 and 28-70 and a few others are also AF-s, and I know loads of pro who are using them on D3's and D700's.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>You are missing out on lugging all that weight around by using older lenses - particularly in relation to the 24-70mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>You are keeping more money in the bank by using older lenses ............. ditto above re: the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens.</p>

<p>You are possibly being penalised with more CA by using the older lenses...............</p>

<p>You will also be penalised somewhat in AF speed by using older lenses.</p>

<p>Gotta love the older Ai, AiS & Ai'd lenses on the D700.......it's all a compromise......</p>

[al_sandberg]

<p>David, I am using the Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 on a D3 and it is a winning combination. Not quite the width of the nano-coated 24-70mm but it is a very sharp lens and seems to focus just fine.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>I'm holding off buying even a D300 with it's DX sensor, so I can continue to use MF lenses, let alone AF lenses. I think as long as you do your homework, and pick lenses that do not have any surprise CA issues on the digital cameras, all you are losing is AF-S focus speed. What you gain is money NOT spent on expensive NEW lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[niccoury]

<p>Agreed John. For pros like myself, gear is EXPENSIVE. I went with the 28-70 over the 24-70 and saved like 500 bucks, which I used to by some PW's. Not enough difference to matter really.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>I higher recommend the 35-70 f2.8 It is a real pleasant surprise. I don't like to use zoom very much so I cannot see myself dumping money into the latest and the greatest Nikkor zooms. However I can see the benefit of a small walk around zoom so I bought the 35 to 70 used. Every time I use that lens I was surprised at the sharpness and the contrast of the images. The close focus feature also makes it more convenient.<br>

I love to find old Nikkor manual focus gems. They are so neat to use on the D700. CA is really not much of an issue with digital because I can always take care of it with photoshop. </p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>There will be som CA issures with the wides, but that can be fixed. Other than that, they work ok.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a 35/70 2.8 and is a decent lens. The primes are better, but I do not hesitate to use it.</p>

<p>Some of the consumer grade zooms are ok, most not so good in comparision. The 28/105 was supposed to be ok.</p>

[peter_gilbert3]

<p>Yes, I have a D700 with a 28-105D as my mid-range lens and it is perfectly fine. I also use at the moment a 20mm AF and the new 70-300G AFS VR. I also have an old Tamron 400/f4 SP adaptall that works fine with the D700 (even using matrix metering in A-priority). Plan to get the 14-24AFS or 17-35AFS, maybe the 135DC or 180D and finally the Sigma 50/f1.4. I figure that's all I need. Deciding between the 17-35 and the 14-24 is hard, since I plan to take lots of landscape shots but I do use filters a lot...<br>

Peter</p>

 

[wpahnelas]

<p>"What am I losing by using these older lenses and not newer, FX lenses?"<br>

i don't believe there is such a thing as an "FX" lens, david. no nikkor comes stamped with the letters FX, and that's the reason.<br>

so if you're looking to acquire more lenses for your D700, that's one criterion you <em>don't</em> need to consider. </p>

 

[william_john_smith1]

<p><em>i don't believe there is such a thing as an "FX" lens</em><br>

Nikon thinks so, check their website. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Right, all F mount Nikkors that are not IX or DX are FX. That doesn't mean they all work well on FX, though.</p>

[radek_hensler]

<p>What do you think about old Nikkor AF 24-85 f/2.8-4 D ?<br>

It's wider than 35-70/2.8, which is more suitable for me<br>

but way way chipper than AF-S 24-70/2.8<br>

Is it good enough for D700?</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Nothing wrong with the 24-85/f2.8-4.</p>

<p>Another little gem is the 28-70/3.5-4.5D-AF Nikkor. I picked one up and can't see any difference between it and the f2.8 pro version. In fact, I'm going to do a 28-70 v. 28-70 comparro test one of these days to prove it.</p>

[david newsom]

<p>One and All-<br>

Many thanks for responding. This is all profoundly useful. After battling lens fungus in my AF 2.8 20-35 (cleaned and working) and my much-loved AF 2.8 35-70 (not repairable due to lack of available parts), I'm up and running with the D7oo and these old lenses. I actually took a very old 2. 35mm fixed to Mexico and got some spectacular stuff, once I was able to get my brain back in manual mode.<br>

But man, do I love the D700. Very happy. Now, I gotta find a used 35-70 AF in good shape...<br>

David</p>

[david newsom]

<p>One and All-<br>

Many thanks for responding. This is all profoundly useful. After battling lens fungus in my AF 2.8 20-35 (cleaned and working) and my much-loved AF 2.8 35-70 (not repairable due to lack of available parts), I'm up and running with the D7oo and these old lenses. I actually took a very old 2. 35mm fixed to Mexico and got some spectacular stuff, once I was able to get my brain back in manual mode.<br>

But man, do I love the D700. Very happy. Now, I gotta find a used 35-70 AF in good shape...<br>

David</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>I think the older lenses are decent enough as far as the relative file it will produce but... I would suggest saving your pennies for the newer versions, esp. the 24-70 AF-S. None of the older lenses do what it does for resolution or sharpness. Same goes for the 14-24.</p>

<p>As always though, YMMV.</p>

[david newsom]

<p>Thanks, David. I've been eye-balling this lens (24-70), and shot with it prior to leaving for Mexico. Pretty stunning. I'll definitely end up with it, but for the moment, I'm making due.<br>

DN</p>

[nick_lightbody]

<p>I use mainly Nikkor Manual focus having come from F3s. Have had very good results with all of them on D700. Especially pleased with the old 18mm f3.5. Have just got an AF 35-70 2.8 (not D) which seems to work very well other than the off centre auto focus issues canvassed in other threads. Just need to set up the manual lenses settings in the D700 and remember to change it when swopping lenses. The 9 possible manual sets of settings is however a little limiting if you have more than that no of manual lenses.</p>

[guru_gulvadi]

<p>I am considering buying D700 and interesting to know that I can use older zooms 28-105 with AF. This is very good news for budget (also budding) photograhers. Thanks for sharing..<br>

Could you pl help what CA means. Sorry for my ignorance but I have taken back photography after almost 25 years persuing my other profession of engineering...</p>

[david newsom]

<p>Guru-</p>

<p>CA is "chromatic aberration, and it means the failure of a lens to focus all colors in the same area. If you look closely at an image in areas of high contrast, you can see one side of a dark object tending toward red while the other tends toward blue. Others on this site will do a much better job of explaining this, but that's the general idea. Better lenses mitigate this phenomenon.</p>