Testing D lenses on a Nikon DSLR

[Dogman]

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?

Missed this earlier. But, yeah. At least on the bodies I've used which are all older pro and more recent semi-pro bodies.

I think it was Thom Hogan who described the G primes as sliding into focus while the D primes snapped into focus.

 

[ellisson]

Many thanks to all for recommendations regarding the wide angle lenses for my Nikon bodies, MF and AF.

Looking at the different versions, the older D lenses, G lenses, and VR lenses, is interesting from many angles such as AF function mentioned above by Dogman. Price of course, ease of switching from manual to autofocus, and in several cases the optics design, coatings. Also interesting is the switch from metals such as brass to lighter, modern materials that reduce lens weight, especially for the zooms, and especially for the longer focal length lenses such as the one shown by farlymac in an earlier post: That 80-200mm f2.8 zoom is a very sharp optic, and it will give you a nice workout, too! Glad they included a tripod mount on the lens!

 

[DownUnder]

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?

I own the two. The 24/2.8 gets used nine times out of every ten shooting situations and the 20/2.8 gets the tenth spot.

Both are equally good. I find the 20 distorts the verticals more than the 24, which matters to me as I shoot mostly architectural.

I've also found that for me, the 20 is best for 'tight' scenes, like interiors where the furthest point of focus is 10 meters or less. Using it for landscapes is a bit like what I got when I went to Nepal in the '80s and shot the mountains with a 28/3.5 Nikkor (film)... the tiny blip in the background is Mount Everest.

An expensive lesson, that!!

 

[das]

I don't know. I was never particularly impressed with any of the standard AFD primes I used. They are fine lenses mostly but they did not really punch above their weight. The telephotos were a different story and were fabulous, like the 105mm. I found that the AFS versions of the same lenses were generally remarkably better. I switched out the AFD for the AFS and didn't look back. And AFS can be used on the Z with the adapter. Although I don't own any Z lenses, the lens tests and reports look absolutely phenomenal. If one were a Nikon digital person, and just cared about raw objective optical performance, I don't understand why anyone would use anything other than Z lenses.

 

[Noserider]

Funny enough, Nikon made the in camera lens correction non-cancellable with Z lenses. Nikon doesn't see the point in using their glass in front of their sensor without software optical corrections.
After shooting quite a bit of video earlier in the year with a Z6 and a few of the 1.8 Z S lenses I can see Nikon's point. In these modern times, Improvements in final results require all three, optic, sensor and software.
I think I am beginning to see some attraction to various AF-S lenses.

 

[Rob-F]

Is there necessarily an optical difference between AF, AF-D, or AF-S versions? AF-D lenses just tell the camera the distance information. The optical formula could be unchanged. AF-S is for "silent wave." The focusing motor is in the lens. So, if it should be the case that an AF-S lens focuses more accurately than its non-S counterpart (rather than, e.g. just faster), I could see how that would make it a better lens.

Other than that, what would account for an AF-S being "better" than a non-S?

 

[das]

Is there necessarily an optical difference between AF, AF-D, or AF-S versions? AF-D lenses just tell the camera the distance information. The optical formula could be unchanged. AF-S is for "silent wave." The focusing motor is in the lens. So, if it should be the case that an AF-S lens focuses more accurately than its non-S counterpart (rather than, e.g. just faster), I could see how that would make it a better lens.

Other than that, what would account for an AF-S being "better" than a non-S?

Most AF-S designs are complete ground-up optical revisions of the AF-D lenses, many using aspherical elements, better types of glass, and other new-fangled optical tech. For instance, the 35mm f/1.8 G FX AF-S is radically different than the 35mm f/2 AF-D, and a much better lens, at least in objective performance.

https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/f-mount/singlefocal/wide/af_35mmf_2d/index.htm

https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/f-mount/singlefocal/wide/af-s_35mmf_18g/spec.htm

As with Z's lens performance + internal software thing, that is pretty much where we are and the future. Take a lens' known shortcomings and automatically software correct for it. It's not like every digital photographer is not doing the same thing in Lightroom and Photoshop already. Modern digital tech distorts reality and optics because it is meant to arrive at what we may think is "objective optical perfection" -- no distortion, sharp down to the pixel, no field curvature, overly-saturated, no vignetting, all bent lines are now straight, etc. However, as we all know, none of that stuff necessary makes a good and memorable photo.

 

[Rob-F]

So, the Af-S lenses, being newer, are likely to be newly designed, rather than an existing optical design with a new focusing system. And the newer cameras are more likely to auto-correct their imaging errors. That all makes sense. I believe the only AF-S I may have is my 17-35mm. It's very good, although I haven't bothered to upgrade from my D700, so I'm probably not getting the benefit of in-camera corrections for that lens (or any lens?).

 

[hap]

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?

your cams are similar to mine...although I have a larger herd of film cameras in the Nikon line.

many D lenses. Very much like the 20 afd. Do not have a 24, although it generally gets very good reviews.

 

[farlymac]

A couple of thoughts here. Since the D lenses were designed for film cameras, I never expect them to perform as well as or better than anything newer, but I'm okay with what I've gotten so far. That said, I have given up on the 24-120D due to all the distortion until I can figure out which post processing software to use for correcting the images. Will likely go full Photoshop and Lightroom since they dumbed down PS Elements.

Last week a 28-70/2.8D I ordered came in, and it has the same SWM and no aperture control ring as on a G lens, so I'm thinking this was an interim model before Nikon went full bore on the G lenses. After reading some of the above comments I'll have to check on its internal construction to see if it also has the glass improvements.

It's a monster lens, twice as large as the 28-105/3.5-4.5D it replaced. I might want to get a Z6II for the IBIS.

PF

 

[peterm1]

A couple of thoughts here. Since the D lenses were designed for film cameras, I never expect them to perform as well as or better than anything newer, but I'm okay with what I've gotten so far. That said, I have given up on the 24-120D due to all the distortion until I can figure out which post processing software to use for correcting the images. Will likely go full Photoshop and Lightroom since they dumbed down PS Elements.

Last week a 28-70/2.8D I ordered came in, and it has the same SWM and no aperture control ring as on a G lens, so I'm thinking this was an interim model before Nikon went full bore on the G lenses. After reading some of the above comments I'll have to check on its internal construction to see if it also has the glass improvements.

It's a monster lens, twice as large as the 28-105/3.5-4.5D it replaced. I might want to get a Z6II for the IBIS.

PF

I really like this lens based on everything I have read about it. But back when I was looking I found them hard to find so ended up buying a 24-70mm f2.8, which I find to be a bit too long and front heavy to be "handy". The 28-70mm f2.8 is shorter but fatter if my memory is correct. I still find the proposition tempting as I have very limited need for a lens as wide as 24mm.

 

[farlymac]

I really like this lens based on everything I have read about it. But back when I was looking I found them hard to find so ended up buying a 24-70mm f2.8, which I find to be a bit too long and front heavy to be "handy". The 28-70mm f2.8 is shorter but fatter if my memory is correct. I still find the proposition tempting as I have very limited need for a lens as wide as 24mm.

Mine wasn't hard to find, but it was hard to locate one in the US, especially with the hood. I learned a lesson when I ordered the 20-35/2.8D to make sure it had one. That hood was almost impossible to find until I widened my search and got a reproduction one through Amazon.

PF

 

[chrism]

I have been very happy with many D lenses, regarding them as bargains compared to the G lenses that were current as I built most of my AF set. At that time I had a pair of FM3a bodies as well as the F6, so having an aperture ring let them be used on them too. The list goes:
20mm/f2.8D
28mm/f1.4D
60mm/f2.8D Micro
85mm/1.4D
105mm/f2.8D Micro

My 35, 50, 24-85, 28-300 and 200-500 are four G's and one AFS-E. The E lens can only be used on a digital body (a D850), or at full aperture on the F6. I feel somewhat bemused by folks who say they have to use the latest Nikkor lenses on digital bodies, as the old lenses might have been good enough for film but their deficiencies are all to obvious on a full frame sensor. No doubt they are right if they examine pixels at 100%, but I don't find that a pleasing way of enjoying either photographs or photography.