Old AF lenses - You convinced me ...

KFW1982

I want to say thanks to donaldejose and the others who contributed to the thread "Old AF lenses for New D600?" on the old Nikon Rumors Forum. (I would post there but I understand that forum is closed). I discovered that thread a couple of months ago, found it intriguing but didn't act on it until just this last week.

Last week, I finally purchase a Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G. Yeah, Nikon's silver kit lens that now sells for around $80 (price is going up). I figured if it didn't work, I wasn't out a fortune and I could always turn the lens into a nifty coffee cup.

It arrived today and all I can say is, "Wow." My wife is even impressed. Shooting handheld with a shutter speed higher than my focal length (hard to do on these dark January evenings), I captured exposures that were sharper than any I've ever captured. Auto focus works great. Manual focus works great (I really like how the D600 handles manual focus). Sure, it doesn't have VR and it won't auto-focus on my D5100 but for less than 100 bucks it produces an image that's equal to or better than lenses that I own that cost a hell of a lot more.

I was so impressed I decided to risk another $100 and buy the 70-210 F4-5.6 D for about $100 from KEH. I'll have to see how that goes.

rschnaible

Nice to hear that you are happy with your new purchase..... Enjoy

donaldejose

It is good to see someone was helped by something I took the time to do.

This is the logic that occurred to me 1. If film (obviously FX size) is sharper than digital and 2. if old film AF lenses work on the new FX bodies then 3 the best of those old AF lenses from the days of film also should be very good FX digital lenses. All we have to do is try them out. So that is what I did and posted the results.

If anyone has any old AF lenses around, test them on your FX body and post the results in this thread.

DJBee49

Not sure if this qualifies as an old enough lens but years ago I bought a 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 AF D for my F100. I bought it as my normal 'do everything' walk-around lens for 35mm work. It was pretty cheap, is very plasticky, the lens barrel wobbles a lot on extension to 105mm and it has a rather irritating and confusing little switch to enable you to use its macro focussing range. Not very promising you might think and having just graduated from all metal, MF lenses with gliding, precision focussing controls, I was less than impressed.

The results however, astonished me. It is sharp everywhere in its zoom range and the macro (that I assumed was little more than a sales gimmick) is truly amazing. I have shots of dragonflies that are bitingly sharp taken with this lens. I still use it and would not part with it, although it has been superseded by more sophisticated lenses at vast expense. As it is not worth much money, I feel more secure about carrying it around all the time than I would a more exotic modern lens. I have not really performed side-by side tests with, say, my 70-200mm f2.8. I would hope that it would be overwhelmed or I might think I had spent my money unwisely, but it is fine for snapshots and general use. I have also used it for studio product shots without any IQ problems at all.

PB_PM

The AF 28-105mm 3.5-4.5D and AF 70-210mm F4-5.6D are good lenses for general photography. I've had both lenses and liked how light weight and compact they are. Both are decent in terms sharpness, although they are a little lacking at the long end. The one area where those lenses struggle is contrast, they do not perform well in back-lit situations, or if the light source is in the frame. If you don't have the lens hoods it's even worse.

DJBee49

I can't say that I have noticed the contrast problem but I am sure you are right. I guess I am just so used to fiddling with contrast settings in LR or Photoshop these days as a matter of course that it does not register. I suppose, in truth, this would be a problem on colour film but not really so much with digital.

The problem with flare I have noticed but it is not the only lens I have that has a problem here. My 16-35mm f4 (modern and much more money!) is really bad with bright skies and I have used a neutral grad. filter to help on several occasions.

haroldp

The 24-85 mm f3.5 - f4.5 is another winner, and cheap.

KFW1982

Thanks for the responses. I, too, would like to see more results with more lenses.

For my third lens, I'm trying to decide between the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF-D and the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 AF Micro. In the previous thread, donaldejose showed the results of the 60mm, which looked great. For use, I might not be as interested in shooting bugs and other small creatures, so the 60mm looks promising. At price point, they're about the same. The advantage to the 105 is the reviews suggest it would be a better macro lens.

Any thoughts?

DJBee49

I have neither but I would say from the macro experience I do have that 60mm. is too short a focal length on a full frame camera. You will just be too close to the subject, spook it, get your own shadow in shot, no room for reflectors etc. Perspective will be 'false' as well if shooting that close. 105 or 200mm would be much better I think.

spraynpray

I have neither but I would say from the macro experience I do have that 60mm. is too short a focal length on a full frame camera. You will just be too close to the subject, spook it, get your own shadow in shot, no room for reflectors etc. Perspective will be 'false' as well if shooting that close. 105 or 200mm would be much better I think.

KFW says he is not interested in bugs so working distance is not an issue and 50mm is natural perspective on FX.

For table top or close portraits etc. the 60mm is fine - f2.8 becomes f3.4 at closest focusing distance though, but who cares?

DJBee49

Sorry but I don't really agree. Remember that perspective depends solely on subject to camera distance, not focal length. If you get really close to the subject with any focal length lens you will get distorted perspective. That is why most people would not recommend a 60mm lens as an ideal portrait lens. To full frame, you will be a little too close. The full frame from a 85-105mm is usually thought to be better- or even longer. You might want this sort of perspectiveI suppose but often it is not desirable. When I shoot any macro on the 28-105mm mentioned above for instance, I always use it at its 105mm setting for that reason- and the other ones! The problem with the longer focal lengths of course is that your already tiny D.O.F. gets even tinier. Swings and roundabouts!

Also, he said he MIGHT not be interested in shooting bugs. Bet he will!

PB_PM

I can't say that I have noticed the contrast problem but I am sure you are right. I guess I am just so used to fiddling with contrast settings in LR or Photoshop these days as a matter of course that it does not register. I suppose, in truth, this would be a problem on colour film but not really so much with digital.

The problem with flare I have noticed but it is not the only lens I have that has a problem here. My 16-35mm f4 (modern and much more money!) is really bad with bright skies and I have used a neutral grad. filter to help on several occasions.

I'm comparing contrast to my current go to lenses (24-70mm F2.8G & 300mm F4). In my experience you cannot get the type of micro contrast offer by the higher end lenses in post (unless you are spending way more time at it than I am!).

Not sure how an ND filter is helping with flare, filters always make it worse in my experience. :-/

donaldejose

It is true the older film era AF lenses won't have the modern coatings, such as nano-crystal coating, so whatever benefit they provide will not exist in the older film era AF lenses.

Ironheart

You could always put a coated filter on the front.

donaldejose

Yes, but best just to not point them into the sun! Use some "old style" techniques such as lens hoods and shading the front element from direct light with a hat or other dark object when the camera is on a tripod.

DJBee49

PB PM
I am sure that you are right about the micro contrast. I guess it is a matter of degree but the results from the 28-105mm really do look pretty good for a cheap old lens! I never maintained that this lens can really compete with a pro. level modern lens, I merely said that it was excellent for its price and age. In my experience this is true.
You are correct in saying that a ND filter won't help with flare but that is not what I said. I was referring to a neutral (as in no colour) graduated (usually called a 'Grad') filter which will help, if you place the neutral density part of the filter over the sky which is the normal way of using them. It reduces the exposure in that area specifically, thus reducing the flare from it. The rest of the filter is clear and does not affect the exposure and so the brightness range of the image is effectively reduced. It can help.

PB_PM

As I noted in my first post, there is no argument that for the price ($150-200) the 28-105mm is a great lens! It was the go to lens with my D700 for the first year I had it, while saving for the 24-70). I would take it any day over the 28-85mm VR from the reviews I've seen!

Yes I meant NDG. I have NDG filters, and at least with my kit it adds flare. You must have some really high end filters!

Msmoto

Talking about old lenses suggests to me that there may be a lot of variability and that one might find a real gem. As for filters, maybe the nice part of an older, lower cost lens is that one may not use a filter unless for a special purpose.
Most of the issues in photography are with the actual shooting techniques. And, there are dozens of issues in capturing images which have little to do with the actual lens, but with how we utilize the strengths and weaknesses of an individual lens.

Fraucha

I have been using 2 on my D800, hold overs from my early film days.

1) A Nikkor-H 300mm f4.5 Heavy, sharp. I should get a couple Arca-Swiss feet to add to the two screw mounts.

2) Zoom-Nikor 35-105 3.5-4.5 (has macro switch) Interesting lens, easy to use, hell I used it for years and years on the F2. Sharp and clean.

Both are in pristine condition since I took damn good care of them because my "accountant" would not release funds for more. Fired (cough) the "accountant" got a new one!