AFD lenses on high res cams

mayuo_tsuriageru · August 24, 2014

Can I successfully use older afd lenses like 20/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.4, 85/1.4... on 24 mpx cameras (d3x) or even 36 mpx (d800) ?

What's the catch with high res cams? Will my pictures actually look worse than using the lenses on a 12 mpx cam (d700) ?

ShunCheung · August 24, 2014

36MP and perhaps 24MP can potentially out-resolve some older lenses (especially wide open) or even some recently introduced lenses that are not top of the line. The result from 36MP is not necessarily worse than what you can get from 12MP, at least after you down sample. If you pixel peep, 36MP might not look great at the pixel level.

The point is, why are you using a 36MP body? Why would you use lenses and technique that cannot take full advantage of 36MP?

Hector Javkin · August 24, 2014

No, your photos will not look worse on a 36 MP body than they will on a 12 MP body.

And there are good reasons for using a 36 MP body on FX, or a 24 MP body on DX, that have nothing to do with the resolution that these can achieve. Except for the much more expensive D4 and D4s, the only way to get Nikon's best autofocus system is to use a D800 or D810, or a D7100, which has even greater pixel density.

If have a 36 MP body for some of your photography which requires extremely high resolution, you may want to use the same body with, say, an old NIkon 85mm AFD f/1.4, which can produce lovely photos even after the release of the newer AF-S version.

bgelfand · August 24, 2014

Why would you use lenses and technique that cannot take full advantage of 36MP?

</blockquote>

I do not know what the OP will answer, but my answer is simple - money.

If in addition to $3300 for the camera body, I would have to expend another $4400 for lenses for just two zooms - a 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 Vi II - and maybe throw in another $1600 for the 85mm f/1.4 for portraits and we are well out of my budget. If the zooms are not "good enough" and I have to go primes, that would mean the 35mm f/.14, the 58mm f/1.4, and the 85mm f/1.4 and ... And we haven't even considered a flash. That definitely puts digital out of my budget.

Of course I could consider the D610, which is a mere 24mp so the lenses might work, but from other photo.net posts, the Auto Focus is not optimal on the D610 and the low light capabilities are not as good as the D810. The 7100? Well the lenses will function but then the effective focal length is off - multiplied by a factor of 1.5 - and I would have to look at new lenses; so that is out.

Shun, I think the first paragraph of your answer is spot on - the lenses will work but may not be optimal. As for the second paragraph, money is a good reason. I suspect there are very few of us who read this forum who can simply expend between $8,000 and $15,000 on a new camera kit all at once.

ShunCheung · August 24, 2014

We'll, if you are after AF capability, AF-D lenses seem to be a sub-optimal choice.

Personally, the primary reason to buy a D800, D800E, or D810 is that you need 36MP for large prints and fine details. Otherwise, while those cameras have Nikon's best AF system, the large number of pixels means huge image files and relatively slow processing. E.g. the D800 is limited to 4 fps full frame and the D810 5 fps. If you shoot any action that require top-of-the-line AF, IMO a 36MP DSLR is the wrong choice.

If you are not shooting action, the D600/D610 is good enough in most situations.

bgelfand · August 24, 2014

the large number of pixels means huge image files and relatively slow processing.

</blockquote>

"Huge" and "slow" are relative. I shoot mostly film and scan my negatives on a Nikon Coolscan V. For processing and printing, I usually scan at 4000 DPI and 14-bit color (the Coolscan scans at 14 bits; Photoshop considers the files 16-bit files) directly into Photoshop CS5 and save the files as PSD files. I end up with files between 75 megabytes and 100+ megabytes in size. I believe this is about the same size as D800 RAW files.

I started using this work flow on my old computer - a 1 GHz Pentium III machine with a "whopping" 512 megabytes of memory running Windows 2000. My "new" machine, which I built in 2010, has an i7-860 2.8 GHz quad core processor with hyper threading and 8 gigabytes of memory. Neither machine was or is particularly slow running Photoshop - either CS2 on the old machine or CS5 on my current machine. At least I did not find the speeds hampered me.

Of course shooting film does limit the number of shots I take, so disk space is not a problem. There are only 24 or 36 exposures on a roll of film, and film is expensive; "Spray and Pray" is not part of my work flow <grin>. (Nor am I suggesting, Shun, that "Spray and Pray" is a part of your work flow. But I do remember a few posts where people bragged about shooting over 3,000 exposures per day, day after day.) Because I have a limited number of exposures, the AF has to get it right the first time; there is no second chance. So I would like the best, at a relatively affordable price - the D4 is out of my price range .

One other advantage of a high megapixel sensor is that it allows cropping. Cropping is definitely part of my work flow. One of the few "lessons" that I had was from the photographer on our small town newspaper. He told me, "Get the correct angle on your shot, then get everything you want and more. Do your final composition in the darkroom when you have 'all the time in the world' to compose." I have found that advice has stood me in good stead especially considering that the at 2x3 aspect ratio of 35mm and FX does not match any standard paper size save the smallest 4x6 sized paper. For all the other paper sizes, one has to crop.

Oh, well, this just my ramblings. Now if Nikon would just release the D750 mentioned in another post, this whole discussion would be moot. <grin>

ShunCheung · August 24, 2014

Brooks, this is Mayuo's thread. Therefore, the real question is why the OP needs 36MP (or 24MP). What you use is a different subject.

A high frame rate is critical to a lot of sports and action photographers. That is precisely why Canon's 1DX, Nikon's D4, D4S ... are capable of doing 10 to 12 fps. I certainly would like to take full advantage of such capability when I photograph action, and that is why the 36MP D800 and D810 are not the preferred tools for such applications. No offense, but the so called "spray and pray" is a derogative term used by people who don't understand action photography and are quick to dismiss people who shoot at a high frame rate.

robert_bouknight1 · August 24, 2014

I am happy with the results of a number of AFD lenses on my D 800. My 180/2.8 and 105/2DC images look great, I think.

I got good results with a 24/2.8AFD. I was not happy with the 35/2AFD on 12MP, so I would not expect it to do well at

36Mp. My older 28/2 and 35/2 MF do well, though.

AF fine tune is very important to achieve the best results.

Richard Williams · August 24, 2014

Therefore, the real question is why the OP needs 36MP (or 24MP).

</blockquote>

Whether the original poster 'needs' a high resolution camera isn't really the question that was asked either. 24MP is standard now, already enough resolution to expose the weaknesses of some older lenses. 36MP is unusual today, but might well turn up in mid-range or even entry-level models in a couple of years - there may soon be no choice! Anyone who has been using Nikon for a while is likely to have a collection of older lenses, and will sooner or later have to deal with the question mayuo has raised. I suspect a lot of us will be supplementing our collections with some new glass that can take full advantage of that pixel count when required, but won't be throwing away all the old gear, which will still have many useful applications. Judging from posts on other forums, quite a few owners of D800s (and modern AFS primes) still seem to be packing lenses like the humble 28-105 in their travel bags. So how good are these older lenses on the cameras of 2014? There's no simple answer. Some are still superb. Others, not so much. But it's a pretty safe bet that any particular combination of lens and camera has been thoroughly tested by several people and described to death in forum or blog postings While there's plenty of information the trick, as usual, is to sort out the informative tests from the clueless bodge jobs and KR-style hypefests.

rick_m. · August 24, 2014

The key is in Shun's first post. The shots will not look worse if handled properly.

Sometimes I sound like a broken record....Of course you area asking about shots taken with these lenses, in good light, appropriately high shutter speed, from a tripod, in Raw. Right.

Because if you are talking about shots at high ISO, hand-held at marginal shutter speeds, of targets that are moving in the frame, in harsh light....etc, the small differences in lens quality are the least of your worries.

I believe that most people who recognize the usually tiny lens differences as a problem would see the cure more likely in buying a mouse without a zoom roller than in a new lens.

Wouter Willemse · August 25, 2014

What's the catch with high res cams?

</blockquote>

As Shun implied, reduced continuous frame rate, large files (which trickles down throughout your storage solutions - not only larger memory cards, but larger hard disks, backups etc.). Other than that, there is no real catch.

The real catch is the fact that the current line-up of Nikon is difefrent from when the D700 was available. For action, the obvious choice is a D4/D4s, at a cost, or drop down to the D610 with slightly inferior AF and slightly different handling than the D700. For being an allround camera with handling very similar to the D700, the D800/D810 makes a lot of sense - at the "cost" of this high resolution. The D810 is as fast as a D700 without grip, though, so the differences are not that huge. The choice depends a lot on why you want to replace a D700, what you use it for and which characteristics matter most to you. So, the catch is that you have to think a bit better which camera fits your uses. Which is an useful exercise anyway, I'd say.

(btw, at this point, I wouldn't look at a D3x anymore - it's been overtaken by the D800, unless you really want the large D3/D4 body. Else, it's just a more expensive but not better camera)

Whether you need to spend the cash on lenses that can "satisfy" the 36 (or 24) million pixels is another question. Most of us buy lenses to do a job, and I know I've got some lenses that will not come close to outresolving the D600 sensor, but which have other characteristics I much like; if I'd get a D810 (not impossible), they'd stay despite their optical shortcomings. They render images the way I like them, and I don't really care if in the process some pixels aren't optimally used. That said, it's balanced by some lenses that will match a bit better - different horses for different courses.

On the OPs list, I think the 85 f/1.4 is the type of lens you just keep for its rendering, regardless whether it "does justice" to all pixels your camera have; it is and remains a lovely piece (and the AF-S isn't that much better that the upgrade is worth the money). In other cases, i.e. the 35 f/2D, I think the lens isn't special enough to cling onto; the new 35 f/1.8 (FX) looks a whole lot better and worth the upgrade.

But, in the end, it's about the image and not so much about the individual pixels.

Two23 · August 25, 2014

>>I do not know what the OP will answer, but my answer is simple - money.

If in addition to $3300 for the camera body, I would have to expend another $4400 for lenses for just two zooms - a 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 Vi II - and maybe throw in another $1600 for the 85mm f/1.4 for portraits and we are well out of my budget. If the zooms are not "good enough" and I have to go primes, that would mean the 35mm f/.14, the 58mm f/1.4, and the 85mm f/1.4 and ... And we haven't even considered a flash. That definitely puts digital out of my budget.>>

This gets into something I always found a bit.....silly. The lenses are more important than the camera. It's the lens that determines what you can photo more than anything. It's the lenses that determine the ultimate quality of your images. I see spending big bucks on something less important (camera) and then not having the money to buy the important thing (lenses) as the classic beginner's mistake. The other thing you swerved into by talking about camera, lenses, and flash is that I've learned to look at photo gear NOT as just a single piece, but rather as a SYSTEM. All the pieces have to work together to deliver the images you want. Blowing all your money on a camera and then not having enough to buy a competent SYSTEM will cripple you. I almost always advise buying lenses first, and with what's leftover look for a camera. The other way is backwards.

Kent in SD

dan_brown4 · August 25, 2014

Well, Nikon surely likes a thread that summarizes the benefit of buying latest model Nikkors for your D800. My testing and experience tells me that is not a rule at all, and I often times prefer the older lenses. There are many excellent AF-D Nikkors well worth shooting on a D800. Some are better than their modern counterparts. And, stopped down to f5.6 or so, virtually all of the AF-D Nikkors will perform beautifully on a D800. The AF-D Nikkors are also nicely compact in comparisons to AF-S lenses, and so are the hoods. The AF-D lenses are substantially less costly. Often times no more expensive than a quality filter (which I generally omit on these lenses). IMHO, the biggest disadvantage is the lack of vibration reduction on the older lenses.

ShunCheung · August 25, 2014

There are many excellent AF-D Nikkors well worth shooting on a D800. Some are better than their modern counterparts. And, stopped down to f5.6 or so, virtually all of the AF-D Nikkors will perform beautifully on a D800.

</blockquote>

Do you have the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D? I would like to see your test results of that lens on a D800, especially corner performance.

As a reference, I found the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S, which is an early AF-S lens, performs poorly on the 17mm end on the D3X and D800, even stopped down to f8. The center of the image is fine, but the corners are blurry. See the discussion and my test images on the following thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aU7B

The much newer 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S, which is considerably cheaper since it is a slower lens, performs much better into the corners. I own both lenses and don't use the 17-35mm that much any more. 10, 15 years ago, it was considered to be a great lens.

michael_bradtke · August 25, 2014

The 24 f/2.8 D was known as a poor performer on film let alone digital. But with that said I use some very old glass on a D800 that I have access to. My original version 58mm f/1.4 does very well on the D800 if you get the focus right. My 14mm f/2.8 D sucks in the corners but then most 14mm lenses suck in the corners. I am not really all that impressed with the 14-24 on the D800.

I do not usually pixel peep as I am shooting for print. Most of my work is shot to be hung on clients walls or the occasional magazine or book. For all of that work the D4 is just fine in fact my old D300 does the job too.

Using your equipment correctly is going to contribute to image quality as much or even more then having the newest lenses.

It isn't the paint brush it is the painter.

bgelfand · August 25, 2014

This gets into something I always found a bit.....silly. The lenses are more important than the camera.

</blockquote>

Kent, in the 1950's and most of the 1960's, I would have agreed with your thesis. The camera body was simply a box that held the film and the lens. As long as the "box" was light tight, held the film in the focal plane, and had an accurate shutter, the lens was the most important component and as such need to be the best possible within budget constraints. Of the three major components - the camera body, the lens, and the film - the lens was the most important and commanded the lion's share of the budget.

Then in the mid to late 1960's, the TTL light meter was added. Now the camera body affected the exposure of the image; its importance in producing the final image increased and due to this increased importance commanded more of the budget. In the late 1980's and 1990's cameras became "smarter". The light meter was no longer a simple light meter, but had various modes - spot, center weight, and matrix. In matrix mode the camera body evaluated the scene and made exposure decisions. The camera body became even more important to the look of the final image and commanded an even larger portion of the photographic budget.

With the advent of the digital camera, the camera body no longer just held the lens and film; the camera body was the film. Thus it commands an even large portion of the budget.

You are absolutely correct. The camera is a system. The only question is how to apportion the budget to the components of the system. In the early days of digital, the bodies changed rapidly - the changes were revolutionary - while lenses changed more slowly - the changes were evolutionary. It made sense to invest in the best lenses you could afford and skimp on the body which would be obsolete in a year or two. Lately, digital bodies have matured and the changes have slowed. I can easily see a body like the D610 or D810 serving as a still image camera (video is another matter) for a decade before technology forces an upgrade.

It may well make sense to purchase the body now and upgrade the lenses over time as required, as long as the lenses meet at least a minimum level. Although the lens may be more important than the camera body, the balance is shifting from the lens to the body; the two are coming closer to equality.

Two23 · August 25, 2014

<<It may well make sense to purchase the body now and upgrade the lenses over time as required, as long as the lenses meet at least a minimum level. Although the lens may be more important than the camera body, the balance is shifting from the lens to the body; the two are coming closer to equality.>>

The difference in image quality between an image made with a D4s and a D3300 is already so small for most kinds of photography that the average person looking at a "normal" size print will not see any difference. My approach has been to put together the best set of lenses (emphasis on usefulness to what I shoot), a pro level tripod/head, and a very capable lighting system, and simply plug a medium priced camera into this system every several years. This has worked very well for me, mainly by giving me a great balance between saleable image quality and cost.

Kent in SD

bgelfand · August 25, 2014

That certainly is a valid approach, Kent.

For lens purchases, the one major difference I see between the D3300 and the D4s is sensor size and the crop factor that goes with it. A 50mm lens would give a field of view equivalent to a 75mm lens on a D4s (or D610/D810). Other lenses are affected in like manner. I should think that first you have to decide whether you want to go with an APS-C size sensor or an FX sensor before you begin your lens acquisitions. At least that is my dilemma.

Two23 · August 25, 2014

Lens selection is the crucial thing. It requires you to very carefully analyze what you photo, what conditions, and how much you want to spend. For example, shooting indoor sports has different requirements vs. shooting landscapes. Since I actively shoot SO many different formats--DX, 127, 35mm Leica, 645, 6x6, 6x9, 4x5, and half plate, I don't pay much attention to the actual focal length of lenses. I was never really heavily invested in 35mm in the 1990s since I was shooting 645 most of the time. With my current Nikon D7100 pair, I have basically four lenses: my ultrawide zoom, mid range zoom, "wedding" long zoom, and long zoom. These are actually the 11-16mm f2.8, 17-55mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, and 80-400mm AFS, but I don't think of them in terms of numbers, but rather in terms of what they do. On my Leica IIIc I have three lenses: wide, normal, and long (28/50/90mm). The numbers really don't matter to me. Yesterday I was out shooting a steam train with my wide angle lens, which was a 90mm Dagor on that camera.

Kent in SD

bebu_lamar · August 25, 2014

The point is, why are you using a 36MP body? Why would you use lenses and technique that cannot take full advantage of 36MP?

</blockquote>

I myself do not intend to buy those expensive lenses nor those greatest and latest lenses so with that you would advice not to buy the D800 (D810)? I didn't buy a D800 but I thought the extra MP would not hurt.

ShunCheung · August 25, 2014

I didn't buy a D800 but I thought the extra MP would not hurt.

</blockquote>

What makes you think that extra, unnecessary pixels wouldn't hurt? Didn't I already explain the trade off much earlier, in the 5th post on this thread?

The 24 f/2.8 D was known as a poor performer on film let alone digital. But with that said I use some very old glass on a D800 that I have access

</blockquote>

The 24mm/f2.8 is an old optical design, dated to 1977 the beginning of the AI era, but I think it is still ok on film bodies and ok on the D700. However, it was Dan Brown who had made a blanket statement on all AF-D lenses earlier:

And, stopped down to f5.6 or so, virtually all of the AF-D Nikkors will perform beautifully on a D800

</blockquote>

The 24mm/f2.8 AF-D is simply an obvious example to challenge that claim. Additionally, I am aware that Dan had purchased a bunch of used AF-D lenses earlier this year for the Df: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cIox

I have owned some of the same lenses myself, such as the 24-50mm/f3.3-4.5, etc., which I sold years ago since it is not a good performer. I seriously doubt that it would work well on the D800/D810. However, maybe everybody's definition for "perform beautifully" is different. :-)

rodeo_joe1 · August 26, 2014

My take on this would be that if AF is a must, and AF performance is your main concern, then I'd agree with Shun 100% that AF-D lenses shouldn't be a priority on your shopping list. When Nikon first moved their prime designs to cheap plastic AF bodies the quality suffered I'm afraid. I have old manual focus metal-bodied Ai-S primes that outperform their AF versions, simply because the plastic version AF tolerances were more sloppy in those days.

When I first bought into the Nikon DSLR system I already had a shedload of Nikon MF and AF lenses. Was I going to bin them all without trying them on the D700 and later the D800? Was I heck! And you know what, most of those old lenses are still well capable of taking pixel-peepingly (is that even a word?) good pictures on a D800.

sebastianmoran · August 26, 2014

For mayuo, the OP --

Yes, you can use the AF-D lenses. No, the images with a 24MPx or 36MPx camera will not be worse than with a 12MPx camera. I use the lenses you mention on 24MPx bodies all the time. Yes, the newer lenses may be better than the older.

Yes, there are drawbacks to a camera with more MPx: slower FPS, larger files. Lots of good comments above about what camera is good for what. I wish you good shooting!

mayuo_tsuriageru · August 26, 2014

No, your photos will not look worse on a 36 MP body than they will on a 12 MP body.

</blockquote>

And if you don't downsample, will the afd lens look good on 24-36 MPx?

The choice depends a lot on why you want to replace a D700, what you use it for and which characteristics matter most to you.

</blockquote>

Why would anybody want to replace a d700 by d800 if resolution and video are meaningless to them? What does the extra 2000 dollars really buy me?

Ed_Ingold · August 26, 2014

Your pictures won't look worse with a high resolution camera, but you may notice defects that were inconsequential at lower resolution. Now that 36MP sensors are relatively inexpensive and widely available, I hear too often that this lens or that is "good enough for film," but you may want to shop for something better.

It's not just the lens but the shutter and technique used by the photographer. The state of the art may be live view and electronic shutters, which completely eliminate vibrations due to the mirror and mechanical shutter. Lenses designed to clear a swinging mirror usually incur compromises in resolution and contrast. Some of the new generation of mirrorless cameras offer incredible performance and freedom from flare, CA and distortion.

Corner softness may not be as objectionable as some think. If your subject is sharp (in the right places), the edges may be soft if not deliberately out of focus. This may actually enhance the subject's isolation, improving the overall effect. On the other hand, if you are copying newsprint or test targets for fun and profit, a different lens may be in order.

In short, use the 24/2.8 AF-D. If you don't like it, sell it and trade up to something better. If you don't need speed, then perhaps a Zeiss ZF lens is in your future. You may decide to keep your older lenses "if they're good enough for film."

Sign In

AFD lenses on high res cams

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in