Bought 85mm 1.8 non-D AF by mistake

[joshloeser]

<p>From Adorama, I bought the 85mm 1.8 AF lens, rather than the 85mm 1.8 AF-D version I thought I was getting. In hindsight, I'm sure I just missed the lack of the letter "D," which is my fault. But, now that I have it, how good is it compared to the 85mm 1.8 AF-D D, and what kind of condition is it most likely in? It came in pretty good condition, though the top part of it, where someone's left fingernails probably were a lot, is pretty scratched up. The rest is fine. I just have to wonder about the internals of it. It can't be any newer than 1994, if my facts are right.</p>

<p>Also, what kind of resale value does it probably have? Any information in general about it (particularly compared to the D version) would be much appreciated.</p>

[User_276104]

<p>Personally, I wouldn't seek out a "D" version of a used AF lens over a "non-D". I can understand your surprise over realizing an error in ordering, though.</p>

<p>KEH Camera is a good source for determining resale value of gear, but they don't currently show any used D or non-D versions of the 85mm f/1.8 on their site.</p>

<p>As far as whether to keep the lens, the proof is in the pictures. Go shoot some "serious" subjects and if everything looks good to you, keep the lens and enjoy using it!</p>

<p> </p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Hi Josh,</p>

<p>It's optically the same as the 'D' version which is excellent :-) Upon checking the aperture lock is the only difference I see in construction.</p>

<p>Unless you intend to use a flash with this lens a lot I'd not worry. Just go out and shoot some frames and see if it's a pleaser....... :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[andrew_gale]

<p>i doubt that you would ever see a noticable difference in terms of images unless you go hard core on the flash. If you do, simply sell it and buy the D version.<br>

Try KEH, you can probably buy a D for as little as you paid for the non D.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>Thanks for the info :).</p>

<p>Any thoughts on what the internal condition could be like? Or does it really matter?</p>

<p>I've noticed some strong CAs in some images, but other than that, it seems good to me.</p>

[helen_oster]

<p>Josh<br>

I apologize that you may be disappointed with your purchase; please contact me if you would like to arrange a return / exchange.<br>

Sincerely<br>

<strong>Helen Oster<br />Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador</strong><br>

helen.oster@adoramacamera.com<br>

www.adoramacamera.com</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>If the "D"-version is important to you, I think you should return it, not that the non-D-version is bad, but more for the fact that you may look for any faults in it, since this might for you seem to be an inferior lens.</p>

<p>However, I really think you will not see any difference. The 85/1.8 is awesome.</p>

[SolaresLarrave]

I had a non-D version of the 50mm lens... and loved it. To be quite honest, if you aren't using it for serious (frequent,

important) flash work, there should be no difference. And if you do the ocassional flash shot, it still will work fine if you set

the camera on P.

<p>I have the AF 85mm/1.8 non - D version. It´s excellent. Don´t worry - be happy!</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF85mm/index1.htm<br>

According to this website, optically the D and non D should be the same. There may be a question about the lens coating difference though. </p>

[peter]

<p>I will often research lenses on the interent before buying. Usually the D or Non D issue does not bother me so long as the optical characteristics are suitable. Many lenses were upgraded to D spec with the only changes being those made to the chip. Others got a redesign. I recently bought a D version of the 28mm AF f 2.8 as this is reported to be the best of the AF versions (AIS version is better still) having been upgraded in optical design at the time the D conversion was made. But I also have the very first AF version of the 50mm f1.4 as its still a great lens. As the 85mm did not change in design. In fact all versions of this lens are reported to be wonderful.<br>

I certainly would not be bothered. (The added advantage of this approach is that in some cases the non D version can be had cheaper on eBay because people think it should matter.)</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>I have the non-D version of this lens and it works pretty well when using flash. I just have to be careful about possible reflections in windows or mirrors. </p>

[joshloeser]

<p>I really, really appreciate the replies and information.</p>

<p>However, no one has addressed my other key question, which is how much wear and tear has possibly accumulated in an obviously well used lens that couldn't have been made any later than 1994. </p>

[p_m12]

<p>I had the non-D 85mm f1.8 AF. As it gets older it tends to rattle more. If yours does not rattle, then it is good. The flash works good with the non-D version. I think it's only slightly more accurate with the D version. Ken Rockwell thinks the non-D version is fine. If your flash is bouncing off a wall or ceiling then I think the D version does not help anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[joshloeser]

<p>Just in case anyone runs across this and wonders how it turned out, the lens has been terrific. At 2.2 and on, it is viciously sharp and outperforms my 85/1.4 in pure sharpness. That's not what it's all about, of course, but it's something to take note of. It also survived at least two major impacts with hard surfaces and was undamaged in both cases. All in all, my 85/1.8 AF has been an excellent lens that was probably one of the best of whatever number of copies it was made with. </p>

[joe_h3]

<p>Josh,<br>

I also have an 85 1.8 "non-d" version and absolutely love it. Have recently been debating if the "d" version would be important to have for use with flash but after reading this, deciding against it since I have not had any issues yet.<br>

The lens is sharp and a blast to shoot with!</p>