Manual Focus or Auto Focus Lenses?

snegron · Sep 9, 2006

firecracker said:
Are there any good Nikkor AF lenses that do well on Nikon manual cameras? Any good recommendation for the zoom lenses for traveling (preferably something compact and light-weight)?

I've been thinking about getting a used 24-120mm F3.5-5.6 Nikkor D lens for convenience, but I've never read any good reviews on it.

My favorite all around lens is the Nikon 28-105mm 3.5/4.5 AF D. It is very sharp and not too expensive. Drawbacks are a rotating front element and an odd 62mm filter size. Other than that, I love this lens. It is not a G series lens, so you can use it with older Nikons as well.

Dave Parker · Sep 9, 2006

snegron said:
odd 62mm filter size. Other than that,

What is so odd with a 62mm filter size, I have quite a few lenses that have this size filter? 62mm is not what I would consider an odd filter size, in fact all of the filter manufactures offer virtually their whole product line in this size..

Dave

naturephoto1 · Sep 9, 2006

PhotoJim said:
The L lenses contain fluorite elements. The non-L lenses don't. The EF 50/1.4 is not an L lens but all the elements are glass. Since it has no fluorite elements (and many lenses do not need them), it isn't an L lens.

Nikon uses ED glass. It serves the same purpose. It isn't as prone to temperature changes which is why Canon L lenses are often white (especially big telephotos and zooms) and Nikon's are generally black. Optically it is about a wash, although fluorite lenses are softer than ED glass so you can't use them as the outer element.

Hi Jim,

I am not sure if Canon uses Fluorite elements in all the L series lenses. The Fluorite element was introduced for the ultra fast Super telephoto lenses like the older 300mm Fluorite f2.8 SSC. The Fluorite elements may be used in some of the current ulrta fast Super Telephotos, but I suspect not in all the L series lenses.

Rich

snegron · Sep 9, 2006

Dave Parker said:
What is so odd with a 62mm filter size, I have quite a few lenses that have this size filter? 62mm is not what I would consider an odd filter size, in fact all of the filter manufactures offer virtually their whole product line in this size..

Dave

It is odd in my case because most of my lenses have either 77mm or 72mm filter sizes. Many of my older (smaller) manual focus lenses have 52mm filter sizes. It seems that currently Nikon only has about 4 zoom lenses and 3 primes with a 62mm filter size. as for the filter manufacturers, Nikon only makes one or two lenses with a 67mm filter size, yet most filter manufacturers make filters in that size as well.

Dave Parker · Sep 9, 2006

snegron said:
It is odd in my case because most of my lenses have either 77mm or 72mm filter sizes. Many of my older (smaller) manual focus lenses have 52mm filter sizes. It seems that currently Nikon only has about 4 zoom lenses and 3 primes with a 62mm filter size.

Okay, I understand that it could be odd for you, but actually 7 lenses in a lens line with the same size filter of 62mm is quite a few lenses...

Dave

tony lockerbie · Sep 10, 2006

I use the 24-120 Nikkor for wedding work as the focal length is very convenient. This lens needs to be stopped down two stops to get good sharpness, definately not one to use wide open!
As for autofocus, I turn it off for 90% of my shots as it drives me crazy when the damn things start hunting and you miss the shot. My camera is a F100 and the only reason I use this is for the metering and not the AF.
Incidentaly my made in China 50 1.4 AF Nikkor flares much worse than my older 50mm 1.4 manual lens but is still sharp.
All of my manual focus Nikkors seem better put together than the AF ones although my 85mm 1.4 is an exception here.
Cheers, Tony

firecracker · Sep 10, 2006

Bromo33333 said:
I used a 50/2 AF-D that seems to have done a great job compared to my Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS on a FM2n. Neither are supposed to be "amazingly great" lenses, but they seem about equivalent in all important ways.

I see. Thanks for the feedback. I have a E Series 50mm, which is about to fall apart, and I am planning to get the AiS version of it soon.

firecracker · Sep 10, 2006

PhotoJim said:
They are at the very least good enough in manual mode, but the professional lenses are clearly better.

You mean the ones with the consistent F2.8?

firecracker · Sep 10, 2006

snegron said:
My favorite all around lens is the Nikon 28-105mm 3.5/4.5 AF D. It is very sharp and not too expensive. Drawbacks are a rotating front element and an odd 62mm filter size. Other than that, I love this lens. It is not a G series lens, so you can use it with older Nikons as well.

Okay I'll look into that. Thanks.

firecracker · Sep 10, 2006

resummerfield said:
Don't do it. I own that lens, and the 28-200, and both are soft.

tony lockerbie said:
I use the 24-120 Nikkor for wedding work as the focal length is very convenient. This lens needs to be stopped down two stops to get good sharpness, definately not one to use wide open!

Thanks for the good advice. I'll re-think about getting this lens.

snegron · Sep 10, 2006

tony lockerbie said:
I use the 24-120 Nikkor for wedding work as the focal length is very convenient. This lens needs to be stopped down two stops to get good sharpness, definately not one to use wide open!
As for autofocus, I turn it off for 90% of my shots as it drives me crazy when the damn things start hunting and you miss the shot. My camera is a F100 and the only reason I use this is for the metering and not the AF.
Incidentaly my made in China 50 1.4 AF Nikkor flares much worse than my older 50mm 1.4 manual lens but is still sharp.
All of my manual focus Nikkors seem better put together than the AF ones although my 85mm 1.4 is an exception here.
Cheers, Tony

I noticed the same issues with the 50mm lenses as well. My AF 50mm actually fell apart, however my old MF 50mm 1.8 AIS is still alive and getting sharp shots.

PhotoJim · Sep 10, 2006

firecracker said:
I see. Thanks for the feedback. I have a E Series 50mm, which is about to fall apart, and I am planning to get the AiS version of it soon.

Most 50/1.8 AI-S lenses are the Series E lens with multicoating added. Only the original version that has a metal barrel and the meter coupling shoe for non-AI cameras is different.

The 50/2 AI is also very good and very cheap, albeit 1/3 stop slower.

PhotoJim · Sep 10, 2006

firecracker said:
You mean the ones with the consistent F2.8?

Of the lenses that I've had the experience of using, yes.

Lee Shively · Sep 10, 2006

As to the original question, I use Leica rangefinders and Canon EOS SLRs so I use both manual and autofocus lenses on 35mm cameras.

The rangefinders manually focus very precisely under most light conditions but I have satisfied myself that, under low light conditions with SLRs, I am not able to manually focus wide to normal lenses as accurately as using autofocus. This is comparing manual focus Nikons to autofocus Canons--the photos with the Canons will consistently be better focused. Long lenses are a little different for me. If the light is really low in contrast, I'm better off manually focusing anything 300mm or longer. If the light is bright and the contrast is good, autofocus is more accurate and faster. That's just the way my eyes work these days.

I prefer using prime lenses to zooms and the Canon prime lenses I own have very good manual focus rings and their optics are better than I need for the photos I do. The Canon consumer zooms have manual focus rings as an afterthought but they operate adequately and their optics are pretty good. I have two Canon L-series lenses--70-200/2.8 and 400/5.6--and the manual focus rings and optical quality are excellent.

Plastic in the lens barrels make Canon non-L prime lenses and consumer zooms feel less substantial but I can't say they're inferior. I recollect that when I used Nikon manual focus equipment, I wore out several manual focus Nikkors with daily professional use and abuse. I don't expect any of my current equipment will ever be subject to that heavy use again.

Claire Senft · Sep 10, 2006

My recollection is that Canon introduced the flourite elements in the 300mm 5.6 lens. This was, by today's standards, a slow lens but it was of very fine quality and very sturdily built.

sanderx1 · Sep 10, 2006

Dave Parker said:
I was not aware that Nikon or any of the major manufactures are using plastic as lens elements??? Could you elaborate a bit, every new lens I have purchased in the last couple of years have had glass elements...I don't shoot Nikon so there is no interchange ability in my system, I shoot the Maxxum system and all of my lenses that I use are metal bodies with glass elements and metal lens mounts.

Dave

The main use of "plastic" in lens elements for SLR-s is in hybrid aspephericals where a organic glass "half-element" is attached to a glass "half-element" to form a aspherical element. The refraction indexes naturaly need to match. Not really used in Pro lens

Ed Sukach · Sep 10, 2006

sanderx1 said:
The main use of "plastic" in lens elements for SLR-s is in hybrid aspephericals where a organic glass "half-element" is attached to a glass "half-element" to form a aspherical element. The refraction indexes naturaly need to match. Not really used in Pro lens

Why do the plastic and glass elements HAVE to have the same index of refraction? Using glasses of differing refractive indices is a necessary practice in lens design: plastic is in effect, simply a "glass" with a different refractive index.
An "all-glass" lens could very well have elements cemented together to form a "group" - therefore, "11 elements in 7 groups".

The reason for plastic is the "asphericity"; depending on the design, it may be a very favorable characteristic. It is far easier - and therefore less expensive - to form a non-spherical surface by molding plastic than by grinding glass.

BrianShaw · Sep 10, 2006

The reason for plastic is ...

Also the ability to mold built-in mounts to the lens elements, making camera/lens assembly easier.

Bromo33333 · Sep 11, 2006

Plastic and Glass

I agree that plastic lens elements ar eusually found in cheaper lenses - there is no technical reason that I can think of that would make any properly designed plastic lens any less sharp than glass - durability of glass would be better of course - and I figure the manufacturing tolerances of plastic and glass should be similar - and the range of refractive index would be similar as well?

Chan Tran · Sep 11, 2006

Manual focus lenses work better than autofocus lenses if you don't use the autofocus features. For Nikon they are also better built in general. I use MF lens on AF body and vice versa.

Ole · Sep 11, 2006

The main difference between current optical plastics and glasses are in the thermal properties. Modern optics are designed to give optimum performance over a wide range of temperatures. Plastics have different enough thermal characteristics to make this a lot more difficult.

The relatively low RI of plastics would otherwise make them very useful in lens design.

Another limitation is that stressed plastic tends to be optically active - that is polarising. So unless the plastic elements are mounted 100% stress free at all temperatures, you would get weird colour effects with a polarising filter - and sometimes without one too.

But as far as I know there are some very high-end lenses which include a thin aspheric film attached to a speric glass element. Some very cheap fix-focus cameras have all plastic lenses, but the cost of making a sufficiently stress-free mount means that it is far more common to find mixed glass and plastic elements in the really, really high-end lenses (especially for d*g*tal SLR's).

sanderx1 · Sep 11, 2006

Ed Sukach said:
Why do the plastic and glass elements HAVE to have the same index of refraction? Using glasses of differing refractive indices is a necessary practice in lens design: plastic is in effect, simply a "glass" with a different refractive index.
An "all-glass" lens could very well have elements cemented together to form a "group" - therefore, "11 elements in 7 groups".

Yes, but if the refractive index of the plastic differered, you should have two elements forming a group and not any longer a hybrid aspherical element. The effect of having an "ordinary" plano-convex lens followed by a plano-aspherical element is far different to having an element with a spherical and aspherical surfaces. And I don't think many would call the former an hybrid element, and you are complicating the design quite a bit and adding extra headaches (think thermal expansion).

reub2000 · Sep 12, 2006

The newer AF lenses seem to me to be repackaged optics of the MF, especially primes (my experience is primarily with Nikon with 35mm).

The Canon FD 50mm f/1.8 and EF 50mm f/1.8 II seemed to be the same things down to the 5 bladed curved aperture. Build quality of the two lenses are however worlds apart.

In my experience, auto focus is pretty accurate. However, I prefer to use the center AF point, using the FEL button to activate auto focus. This means that the lens focuses on the subject that I want it to focus on when I want it to. I just wish that AF SLR manufacturers could put a focusing screen with a split circle focusing screen, that is also marked with the AF points in their AF SLRS.

narsuitus · Sep 12, 2006

1. I own manual and auto focus lenses for my 35mm SLR.

2. The majority of my lenses are manual focus.

3. Unless I am shooting fast moving subjects, I usually manually focus my auto focus lenses.

4. I have no use for auto focus wide angle lenses.

Soeren · Sep 12, 2006

Currently I own one AIS lens and three AFD's for my F90X and Fe2.
AIS: 180mm f/2,8
AFD: 20mm f/2,8 ; 50mm f/1,4 and 85mm f/1,4.
I have had a 28mm f/2,8 AIS wich I would buy anytime again.
I use all the lenses on both cameras. Only downside is the lack of matrixmetering and info in the viewfinder when using AIS lenses on F90X.
Cheers
Søren

Manual Focus or Auto Focus Lenses?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency