farlymac
PF McFarland
AF Nikkor D lenses, to be exact. On a Nikon D610.
I knew I held on to them for a reason. Plus I recently added the 80-200/2.8D, and man it works as advertised.
First up is the AF Nikkor 28-105/3.5-4.5D that I've had for quite a while. It kind of languished after I got a 24-120 for a main lens. It's going to get more use now.
Last Employee by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Japanese Beetle Among The Lichen by P F McFarland, on Flickr
I used a monopod on the 80-200 because it is a metal monster.
Quarry @ 200mm by P F McFarland, on Flickr
But maybe I don't need the pod all the time.
Handheld @ 200mm by P F McFarland, on Flickr
The 28-105 should be my carry-around lens, if it wasn't for the weight of the D610 precluding it from being a carry-around camera.
Some Welcome Rain by P F McFarland, on Flickr
My flock of D lenses could keep me happy until I finally switch over to the Z mount system. I mean they'll have to, because that could be a while.
You can see all the photos from the tests along with specs and commentary at https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWgAcn8
PF
I knew I held on to them for a reason. Plus I recently added the 80-200/2.8D, and man it works as advertised.
First up is the AF Nikkor 28-105/3.5-4.5D that I've had for quite a while. It kind of languished after I got a 24-120 for a main lens. It's going to get more use now.
Last Employee by P F McFarland, on Flickr
Japanese Beetle Among The Lichen by P F McFarland, on Flickr
I used a monopod on the 80-200 because it is a metal monster.
Quarry @ 200mm by P F McFarland, on Flickr
But maybe I don't need the pod all the time.
Handheld @ 200mm by P F McFarland, on Flickr
The 28-105 should be my carry-around lens, if it wasn't for the weight of the D610 precluding it from being a carry-around camera.
Some Welcome Rain by P F McFarland, on Flickr
My flock of D lenses could keep me happy until I finally switch over to the Z mount system. I mean they'll have to, because that could be a while.
You can see all the photos from the tests along with specs and commentary at https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWgAcn8
PF
charjohncarter
Veteran
Looks good, I use my 'A' and 'FA' lenses on the DSLR (Pentax). I've never been able to see any problems.
An aside: I have a Leica Meter 3 (small shoe mounted meter). I bought it in 1963 and used it on my IIIf for years, it is in good condition except it is dead. If you want it for display PM me, and I'll send it.
An aside: I have a Leica Meter 3 (small shoe mounted meter). I bought it in 1963 and used it on my IIIf for years, it is in good condition except it is dead. If you want it for display PM me, and I'll send it.
farlymac
PF McFarland
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Nikon Ds are exceptionally good lenses. Unfortunately, they have been blindsided now in the mad rush to the latest new Z lenses, which are fine, but to my own tests and taste, not greatly better than their predecessors. Except for the (obvious to those of us who think for ourselves) fact that if we overlook the hype, the Zs are the newest line of lenses, Nikon wants to sell them, and enough of us go along with the consumer game, toe the line and sheep-bah-bah the media plugs, so they sell. Sort of. Nowhere near what Nikon hoped they would, but sell they do. Which sums it up.
When the Z6 was released I was able to borrow one from my retail shop in Melbourne, and gave it a thorough test. I found the 24-70 whizz-bang zoom did not really do anything much more than my arsenal of older D glass. I concluded that with the new Z range, Nikon wanted us to pull out our wallets and cough up the cash for new lenses to replace our old lenses - the same-old same-old photo market consumerism with all its bells and whistles. Yes, yes, they are all good lenses, but, but...
My shoots and tests convinced me that my D800 basically did everything the new Zs could, and I didn't have to pony up A$4000++ for an upgrade. My ageing (okay, antiquated) D700s do almost as good, but this is only an aside comment,
Green apples and red apples, sort of.
I also use all my D lenses on my two (film) F65s, so they do double duty here. In all, five times duty (3 digi, 2 film).
I think, all Nikon lenses of whatever vintage, are excellent and eminently usable. My one and only regret in passing up a Nikon Df was, I can't use my old F/AI/AIS lenses on it.
When the Z6 was released I was able to borrow one from my retail shop in Melbourne, and gave it a thorough test. I found the 24-70 whizz-bang zoom did not really do anything much more than my arsenal of older D glass. I concluded that with the new Z range, Nikon wanted us to pull out our wallets and cough up the cash for new lenses to replace our old lenses - the same-old same-old photo market consumerism with all its bells and whistles. Yes, yes, they are all good lenses, but, but...
My shoots and tests convinced me that my D800 basically did everything the new Zs could, and I didn't have to pony up A$4000++ for an upgrade. My ageing (okay, antiquated) D700s do almost as good, but this is only an aside comment,
Green apples and red apples, sort of.
I also use all my D lenses on my two (film) F65s, so they do double duty here. In all, five times duty (3 digi, 2 film).
I think, all Nikon lenses of whatever vintage, are excellent and eminently usable. My one and only regret in passing up a Nikon Df was, I can't use my old F/AI/AIS lenses on it.
Archiver
Veteran
Well, it makes sense that a business wants to remain competitive and sell products, especially in a market where the previous products are being looked upon as obsolete.
Generally, a business can't afford to remain a cart manufacturer in an industry that has moved on to cars. What seems good about the Z lineup is that despite being fairly limited at this time, Nikon is releasing good quality, lightweight lenses and bodies which are in line with current standards of features and performance. Tests seem to show that the new lenses perform better than the old ones, and are lighter and less expensive.
I can't fault a commercial enterprise for wanting to make money and maintain its market share, especially when it does so by making good quality products with an eye for future expansion. It's not like Nikon took some Pentax cameras, rebadged them and added precious gems and leather.
View Range
Well-known
"Nikon want to sell them, and . . ." I think Nikon is managed by people genuinely interested in the product. Right now there are not revolutionary changes in camera equipment. So to stay competitive small changes are made on a regular basis. The changes are insignificant to most users. I am looking forward to trying the Z9 to replace my D5 for sports because of the promised higher frame rate and a real finder for action video.
Dogman
Veteran
It's too bad Nikon didn't see fit to include the screw drive in the adapter for F-mount lenses to use on the Z series cameras. The Nikkor D series lenses are excellent and many Nikon shooters still use and appreciate them. On Nikon DSLRs, the standard primes focus faster than the current G series equivalents in my experience. I have 20mm through 85mm in both D and G series so I have compared them. 'Course many G series Nikkors have advantages--full time manual focus, VR capability, quiet focus and they're usually a little sharper. That 28-105D is an incredibly useful lens and it weighs considerably less than the 24-120/4VR. Given a choice between the two for carrying around all day, I would go with the 28-105. I sorta hedged my bets because I mostly use the 24-85VR as a standard carry around zoom these days.
Personally I have no interest in the Nikon Z-series cameras. I'm very happy using my Nikons with prisms and mirrors.
Personally I have no interest in the Nikon Z-series cameras. I'm very happy using my Nikons with prisms and mirrors.
View Range
Well-known
"On Nikon DSLRs, the standard primes focus faster than the current G series equivalents"?
I have 17-35mm f2.8D, 24-70mm f2.8G, 24-120mm f4G, 70-200mm f2.8G, 105mm f2.8G, 200mm f2GII, and 400mm f2.8 (earlier D). Three zooms, three primes, some G, some D. Focus is instantaneous on my D5. I did not trade up to a D6 because I could not believe autofocus could be any faster or more accurate than the D5. They all focused somewhat slow on my old D2x.
I have 17-35mm f2.8D, 24-70mm f2.8G, 24-120mm f4G, 70-200mm f2.8G, 105mm f2.8G, 200mm f2GII, and 400mm f2.8 (earlier D). Three zooms, three primes, some G, some D. Focus is instantaneous on my D5. I did not trade up to a D6 because I could not believe autofocus could be any faster or more accurate than the D5. They all focused somewhat slow on my old D2x.
Dogman
Veteran
You are listing premium, expensive zooms and primes. "Standard primes", i.e., the 20mm to 85mm non-premium lenses. The G-series 20/1.8, 24/1.8, 28/1.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 are all slower focusing than equivalent D-series models.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Well, since I started this, I might as well chime in a bit.
The main reason I held on to my D lenses was I still like to use film cameras, and they work so well on most of the AF models I have.
But as I age, some of my joints don't work quite as well as they used to, and it becomes difficult to haul around a large bag full of heavy lenses and bodies. That's why I am considering switching to the Z line, so I can have some lighter weight gear. I don't do photography for a business anymore, so my concerns are more to the convenience side of how my outfit is configured.
A body or two and three or four lenses are about all I need. Right now I could get a Z50 and FTZ and just swap it in for the D300s bodies. That would save me on the weight and bulk while still being able to use all my DX G lenses, especially since Nikon does not seem to be interested in making DX lenses anymore.
However, when it comes to FX, I would have to purchase new lenses too because I don't have any G series lenses, and would lose the AF capability of the D series. Or I could just revert back to my pre-N90 days when I only had manual focus cameras.
Maybe someone could make an adapter that would include the screw drive for Nikkor AF-D lenses. That would be a popular item.
PF
The main reason I held on to my D lenses was I still like to use film cameras, and they work so well on most of the AF models I have.
But as I age, some of my joints don't work quite as well as they used to, and it becomes difficult to haul around a large bag full of heavy lenses and bodies. That's why I am considering switching to the Z line, so I can have some lighter weight gear. I don't do photography for a business anymore, so my concerns are more to the convenience side of how my outfit is configured.
A body or two and three or four lenses are about all I need. Right now I could get a Z50 and FTZ and just swap it in for the D300s bodies. That would save me on the weight and bulk while still being able to use all my DX G lenses, especially since Nikon does not seem to be interested in making DX lenses anymore.
However, when it comes to FX, I would have to purchase new lenses too because I don't have any G series lenses, and would lose the AF capability of the D series. Or I could just revert back to my pre-N90 days when I only had manual focus cameras.
Maybe someone could make an adapter that would include the screw drive for Nikkor AF-D lenses. That would be a popular item.
PF
View Range
Well-known
The camera body has a role in the AF speed too. Are you saying the standard prime lenses that focus using the motor in the camera body are faster than the lenses with the motor in the lens?
farlymac
PF McFarland
As an aside, I took photos today of the lenses on the D610. I used the 24/2.8D on a D300s to do so.
AF Nikkor 28-105mm 1:3.5-4.5D by P F McFarland, on Flickr
AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1:2.8D by P F McFarland, on Flickr
PF
AF Nikkor 28-105mm 1:3.5-4.5D by P F McFarland, on Flickr
AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1:2.8D by P F McFarland, on Flickr
PF
Archiver
Veteran
The thing that bothers me about adapting DSLR lenses to mirrorless is the size of the adapter. What is normally a smallish prime suddenly gains an inch, more weight, as is less balanced or compact. SLR lenses on DSLR bodies make sense.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Well, it's kind of a trade-off or compromise. What you gain in length and weight with the adapter is offset by the reduced size and weight of the Z camera. I like the D610, but it's a bit chunky in my opinion, and already kind of heavy without adding the battery/control grip that came with it. My D300s's are more svelte in comparison, but you can't get a battery/control grip for the Z50. So while I would gain some resolution, I'll lose that convenience of not having to contort my wrist to shoot in portrait mode.
PF
pvdhaar
Peter
Nothing wrong with those screw driver AF Nikons..
Nikon ED 300/f4 AF
Nikon ED 300/f4 AF
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Good points here. I agree, even if I'm not about to contribute to Nikon's profits by buying new lenses. My Ds will go on doing what they do so well on my D800, D700s and F65s.
ellisson
Well-known
With Nikon MF (FM3a), AF (F100) film cameras, and a D750 digital camera, I prefer the D lenses for versatility to use on all three cameras. I have the 28-105 D lens and the size is very manageable. I am looking for a wider angle D prime or possibly a zoom lens, something that is 20mm or 24mm. The AF 20mm f2.8 D looks interesting. Can any members recommend this lens or the 24mm prime?
farlymac
PF McFarland
I can recommend both. The two camera/lens portraits above were done with the 24mm on an APS-C body, and I have used the 20mm on several cameras. Its formula hasn't changed much over the years, so the non-D version is basically the same as the D, but a tad less expensive. The D version comes in handy if you use flash (it gives the distance-to-subject info to the flash computer), otherwise that's all it has over the older version.
PF
Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
Throwing this out there because in one part of my own photographic journey I was looking to fill the 20-24mm zone, and be useful for digital but usable across film bodies. I opted for the 20-35 D. It worked really well for what I intended; travel, careful landscape, some wedding coverage in video and a everyday carry lens, on a D810, Z6 with FTZ and an F4 with black and white. I remain very pleased with my choice, I am very much appreciating the images I got with it.
The reasons I considered the 20-35 are;
Having owned and shot with just about every Nikkor wide in the F, K, AI and A-is era I know that the advancements and improvements optically especially effected the wide angles and in particular the wide angle zoom and this lens was a fairly large jump in image quality.
I do recall many of my fellow news photographer in the late film era being very enamored with the 20-35 and I wanted to see how it shot and now I can see why they liked it. It is sharp of course, but it has a nice color rendering and in black and white film for landscapes it can be stunning. I worked very well in my wedding video coverage and is light enough to carry on a body as a going around lens, although I am considering a silicone filter ring shield to give some lateral protection from knocks.
Nikon made a decent amount of them, it was a very popular lens and at least as good as the Canon 20-35L which many of my mentioned photographer buddies also shot with (many switched or had their papers switched during this time period to Canon from Nikon)
It (was) relatively easy to find in near mint condition for a tremendous discount considering what they sold for new (ha let us see how long that lasts). I did pay a premium from a careful selection over time from Japan but I wanted a good copy and I'm happy with the one I got. It works well enough on digital and for black and white film (mostly what I shoot) it works quite well.
Oh and get a good nice top of the line filter if you do get one, it seems to matter with this lens.
The reasons I considered the 20-35 are;
Having owned and shot with just about every Nikkor wide in the F, K, AI and A-is era I know that the advancements and improvements optically especially effected the wide angles and in particular the wide angle zoom and this lens was a fairly large jump in image quality.
I do recall many of my fellow news photographer in the late film era being very enamored with the 20-35 and I wanted to see how it shot and now I can see why they liked it. It is sharp of course, but it has a nice color rendering and in black and white film for landscapes it can be stunning. I worked very well in my wedding video coverage and is light enough to carry on a body as a going around lens, although I am considering a silicone filter ring shield to give some lateral protection from knocks.
Nikon made a decent amount of them, it was a very popular lens and at least as good as the Canon 20-35L which many of my mentioned photographer buddies also shot with (many switched or had their papers switched during this time period to Canon from Nikon)
It (was) relatively easy to find in near mint condition for a tremendous discount considering what they sold for new (ha let us see how long that lasts). I did pay a premium from a careful selection over time from Japan but I wanted a good copy and I'm happy with the one I got. It works well enough on digital and for black and white film (mostly what I shoot) it works quite well.
Oh and get a good nice top of the line filter if you do get one, it seems to matter with this lens.
pvdhaar
Peter
I've got the 20/2.8 AF, and have owned two copies of the 24/2.8 AFD. The 20 appears the better of the two.. Maybe it's sample variation, but both my copies of the 24 (both new at the time) were not sharp, and went back. My 20 on the other hand is plenty sharp, and is unexpectedly flare-resistant for a wide-angle.. in other words: recommended.