Fast AF Nikon (beside F6)

[darkosaric]

Usually I have manual focus Nikkors, but I got myself Micro Nikkor 60mm AF-D, and Nikkor DC 105. I have F80, and F75, and autofocus speed is not very impressive. Is F100 way to go? I don't want to spend big money on F6. On my digital D700 AF is super fast, something like this I would like to have on my film body.

Thanks,

 

[cjbecker]

The f5 will be as fast as they come. Are those lenses in particular fast on the d700?

 

[138S]

F5 vs D700 AF

 

[darkosaric]

Are those lenses in particular fast on the d700?

Yes they are. 105mm DC Nikkor is fast like a lightning, 60mm Micro Nikkor 60mm also. 105mm DC has very short throw from close focus to infinity, 60mm also has short throw until 0.3 meters, one can set limit on 60mm that it does not go on very close focus, so AF is super fast. 85mm AF f1.8 is a tack slower, but fast anyhow.

 

[Cholentpot]

Not really the place for the debate but I'm going to put in my two cents.

I fell into a box of Nikon AF bodies and lenses and have been using them for a half year now. As much as I like them they really really have nothing on the EOS EF line. Canon just had Nikon beat when it came to 35mm auto focus. I really wanted to love these cameras and lenses, and I enjoy using them, but even the entry level auto focus EOS cameras and lenses beat all but the top of the line Nikon AF.

As for manual focus? Nikon every time.

 

[NB23]

F100, definitely. Its AF is more agressive than the F6’.

 

[pentaxuser]

F100, definitely. Its AF is more agressive than the F6’.

So faster? If so by how much. Is there a test(s) to show this?

I ask because in all the debates I have seen I can't recall ever seeing this comment which is unusual as given the "raw power" reputation of the F5 you would certainly expect it to be mentioned

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

I remember my F100 being faster than my current F6

 

[NB23]

Nikon F5 and F100 both share the same multi-CAM 1300 AF module.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I think AF speed depends on a lot. The AFS-G lenses feel slower most of the time, outside of the common 2.8 zooms. The screw drive D lenses all felt pretty fast on F5/100 bodies. In youtube tests though people find that the speed is actually very close if not the same, so something about the experience of using them seems to make them feel slower.

To answer your question simply, yes the F100 is the way to go if you don't want to shell out for an F6. The F5 is too big (IMHO) for most people to shoot these days.

 

[darkosaric]

F100 it will be. I will most probably sell F80 and F75, as I don't use AF bodies so often (having F, F2 and F3 as well).

 

[Sirius Glass]

F100, definitely. Its AF is more agressive than the F6’.

I remember my F100 being faster than my current F6

I have found the F100 fast enough and I would expect the F6 to be excellent too.

 

[mshchem]

F100 and F5 are very fast. I have the hew D6, and it has amazing lock on etc. But my F5 will focus incredibly fast, I've had F100s same thing. F100 has the wonderful red illuminated focus spots, and grid.

 

[NB23]

Not really the place for the debate but I'm going to put in my two cents.

I fell into a box of Nikon AF bodies and lenses and have been using them for a half year now. As much as I like them they really really have nothing on the EOS EF line. Canon just had Nikon beat when it came to 35mm auto focus. I really wanted to love these cameras and lenses, and I enjoy using them, but even the entry level auto focus EOS cameras and lenses beat all but the top of the line Nikon AF.

As for manual focus? Nikon every time.

Funny because all those dpreview fights that used to take place between 1997 and 2010, or so, used to be about how Nikon had a better AF performance than Canon.

But then again, throughout that timeline, we also went from discussions about how 1,500$ was too expensive for a Noctilux to 2013, where 10,000$ was fair price.

Or how, in 1999, the 50 summilux asph was seen as a sterile lens to today, where it has slowly become a “character lens”.

Just goes to show that it’s all BS. Old and experienced users don’t share too much while newbies shout their new (and erroneous) findings, making them new truths.

Like, how the hell have we come to accept such stupid terms that mean absolutely nothing as “macro” and “micro contrast”??

Anyhow, just to let you know that during all these years Nikon was perceived as the cameras with better AF, and now it’s Canon? Holy internet!!

 

[Bormental]

Like, how the hell have we come to accept such stupid terms that mean absolutely nothing as “macro” and “micro contrast”??

Haha, so true! I took a long break from photography between 2009 and 2019. No more dpreview, no more photo.net, I was absolutely focused on other things and my Canon DSLR was collecting dust.

When I came back, I noticed now much the language changed in 10 years. "Clinical rendering" appeared and looks like it's not good! "Micro-contrast" in every lens review! "WTF is that", I thought. I have never, not once, heard this term in late 90s and 2000s... So I assumed it's some kind of new digital benchmark the world came up with while i was gone. And then I saw people reviewing old lenses from the 60s and the 90s (even my own L-glass from Canon)! and raving about (presence, or bitching about absence of) "micro-contrast", even when discussing 1000x500px pictures of ducks and dogs. What the hell.

It's even worse than 3D-pop!

P.S. But sharpness and megapixel hoarders have been quite constant throughout the years. They were pixel-peeping and complaining about 6MP and they continue to be unhappy with 42MP. Shit's never sharp enough!

 

[Cholentpot]

Funny because all those dpreview fights that used to take place between 1997 and 2010, or so, used to be about how Nikon had a better AF performance than Canon.

But then again, throughout that timeline, we also went from discussions about how 1,500$ was too expensive for a Noctilux to 2013, where 10,000$ was fair price.

Or how, in 1999, the 50 summilux asph was seen as a sterile lens to today, where it has slowly become a “character lens”.

Just goes to show that it’s all BS. Old and experienced users don’t share too much while newbies shout their new (and erroneous) findings, making them new truths.

Like, how the hell have we come to accept such stupid terms that mean absolutely nothing as “macro” and “micro contrast”??

Anyhow, just to let you know that during all these years Nikon was perceived as the cameras with better AF, and now it’s Canon? Holy internet!!

To be honest I've only been in this for a little more than a half decade. I never participated in the wars or fights, and by the time I got in the field was wide open to me for any gear I could want. I have no side to chose because I was never indoctrinated with anything at all. The only camera I ever saw growing up was my mothers Olympus bridge SLR or the Minolta something or another.

I really only go by what I experience and I've found even the bargain bottom EF lenses are way faster and accurate than most Nikon stuff. And they are much lighter and intuitive to use. Any EOS camera from the first to the last works exactly the same when it comes to lenses. No f/22 lockup, no manual aperture ring to get confused about. On and go.

As for sharpness, I'm shooting 35mm. If I wanted sharpness I'd move up to something larger

 

[darkosaric]

But Canon manual lenses you cannot use with modern cameras, in Nikon world compatibility is preserved, almost as good as in Leica environment.

 

[foveon_m]

Nikon rocks^^

 

[neilt3]

But Canon manual lenses you cannot use with modern cameras, in Nikon world compatibility is preserved, almost as good as in Leica environment.

Well , almost .
Not all Nikon lenses can be even mounted on all Nikon bodies without causing damage ( think pre - ai ) and using modern lenses on film cameras is just as problematic .
A lot of cameras can't control the apature of G lenses , and no film camera can control the apature of the new E lenses .
Not all digital are even compatible with them .

This Nikon compatibility things a myth !
Granted a lot of old MF lenses do fit modern film and digital SLRs , but there's a heck of a lot out there that don't and catch people out when buying . ( After reading on forums how compatible Nikon lenses are supposed to be !)

 

[darkosaric]

I think that compatibly design in Nikon was not that newer lens must work on old body, it is that old lens work on newer body, that was the goal. NonAi lenses one can convert to Ai, and on lesser digital bodies 3000/5000 you can use non AI lenses.
Nikon compatibility is not a myth, but we can agree to disagree .

 

[neilt3]

If you have to modify something to work or even fit , then it wasn't compatible .
I've quite a few lenses I've modified to fit my cameras .
I've used telescopes on cameras .
I wouldn't discribed a telescope as a compatible lens though , even though it fitted without modification .

 

[ic-racer]

 

[neilt3]

View attachment 251735

That's a big 'un !
It's not on a F100 though ...

 

[Cholentpot]

But Canon manual lenses you cannot use with modern cameras, in Nikon world compatibility is preserved, almost as good as in Leica environment.

I'm going to disagree here.

Canon has two flavors. FD and EF. Very simple.

Nikon has non-AI, AI-S, AF, AF-D, AF-S, AF-P, E type, G, VR, and I'm sure a few others.

While the lens may technically fit on most all cameras it will not meter or stop down. I have a collection of Pre-AI lenses that I can use easily on my Canon DSLRs but not on any modern Nikon body. Nikon is confusing to anyone except for dedicated Nikoners.

 

[John Koehrer]

But one of the major selling points Nikon had transitioning lens mounts WAS compatibility. At least to many pros who didn't want to change or add a second camera system
When Canon went to AF & Nikon eventually followed, Nikon people were forced into AF but had several years before they swapped.
In the early AF days Canon had the edge hands down.