Nikon lenses - old vs new?

[ted_raper1]

<p>I've amassed a small collection of mostly older Nikon glass (details not really important here) for use with my 2 digital (D80, D200) and one film (N80)) bodies. When I switched to digital a few years ago I went out and bought a few DX lenses and used them for a while. Then I discovered I really didn't like them - I know the arguments: DX lenses are optimized for crop frame cameras, they're newer, smaller, lighter, etc. and with the most recent optics. But I still prefer my older lenses, and here's the question: Are the modern DX lenses really that much better on DSLRs than the older, high quality Nikon glass from the late 90s and early 2000s? I never did direct comparisons, has anyone done that with similar lenses? </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>"Better" is such a relative term. You'd be hard pressed to find any vintage Nikon lens that will do quite what, say, the 17-55/2.8 does. Never mind the price or size/weight.<br /><br />The main things I notice about my older Nikkor lenses are the flare and CA issues. If they're older screw-driven AF lenses, I also notice the substantially slower AF behavior, and the loud mechanical noises they make when hunting for focus. These things alternately may matter for some folks, or may be of no consequence at all. Comes down to what you're shooting, where, in how much of a hurry, etc.</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Also, the newer FX/DX lenses are more likely to use ED and coated glass, as well as may include VR. I think the AF is a bit better overall in today's lenses and of course, AF-S can make a big difference. And today's lenses are more likely to be 'optimized' for digital, which may or may not be an advantage.</p>

<p>Depending on what you photograph, this could mean a lot, a little, or something in between.</p>

 

[andy_smothers]

<p>Funny, I still use several AI-S lenses (metering on my D2Xs, but AP or MF only) but they perform perfectly and the optics are superior in my opinion for what my interests are.<br>

For instance, I decided to pull out my 105mm f/2.5 AIS for some macro work, toss in a nice extension tube setup and I was set. Plus, you cannot beat the price, unless you go really crazy and get some of the old legendary lenses. As far as head-to-head, I find the older lenses such as sharp if not a tad sharper and more refined than some of the newer lenses. The new ones will amaze and delight the masses with their OS/VR capabilities, lightning fast and silent AF, but sometimes the optics just don't measure up....<br>

As far as quality and build, I just don't think you can beat some of the truly professional grade lenses. I still have a use a 500mm f/4 P ED MF lens and it is MINT in the original case with original filter packs, both TCs and it just screams quality, durability & precision. <br>

Different strokes...</p>

 

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Ted,<br>

I've found color rendition to change in between older & newer lenses. In some in such a manner that I've liked them more, while others less.<br>

It all depends on what look you wish for from my experience.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[photo5]

<p>Depends on what DX lenses you're talking about. I've found that any zoom lens, save for a few of the newer f2.8 Nikkor zooms, will not perform as well as a good Nikon prime lens. DX just means it has an image circle only large enough for the digital DX sensor. I had manual focus Nikkor primes and sold them when I went to digital, but since then I've bought more and intend to keep them. I'd rather change lenses and save money than pay that much for a big bulky zoom. I've done direct comparisons and some are better than others, but I've always been satisfied with my MF Nikkor primes.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Thanks, guys. For my purposes, what I photograph - I do work for galleries - I'm almost always able to wait for the right light, the right situation. I use tripods, so VR is not that important to me ( I have a couple fast primes) and for the same reason, fast autofocus isn't either. Maybe I just didn't have the right DX lenses, but I found vignetting, cheap construction, etc. just didn't do it for me. So I sold the DX lenses and I'm perfectly happy with my "old" guys. Just for specifics, I use a 50 1.8, a 18-35 zoom, a 28 2.8, a 105 macro, 24-85 zoom, and an 80-200 2.8.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Some of those older lenses are rubbish by today's standards. Others are fantastic.</p>

<p>Depends.</p>

<p>But for my favorite shooting, REALLY wide angles on DX, there is no old equivalent.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>It is hard to generalize between old and new, autofocus or manual focus. However there are still many nikkor manual focus lenses that have no equals. OTOH there are a few newer Nikon DX or FX lenses that have no equals either. I love to read the personal opinions of photographers that shoot with ll of them.</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Broad consensus on favorites among the old AI glass includes:<br>

28mm f/2 AI-S<br>

105mm f/2.5 AI-S<br>

180mm f/2.8 ED-IF AI-S<br>

These are a technical match for any modern lens, and each has a special quality that transcends any comparison on merely technical grounds. These are three "never sell" lenses.</p>