Nikon lens should I go for AF or MF

[Hans Mulders]

Since I move over from Olympus OM to Nikon I wonder what would be the best to do?
I bought a Nikon F2AS in almost mint condition with a 50 mm 2.0 MF lens.
As far as I know the later AF lenses will also fit on this body.
I want prime lenses only 24 mm and 135 mm to begin with.
any recommendations on it? should I get a AI lens or the later AF types?

Thanks for reading and advise

 

[juan]

While AF lenses will fit, they don't autofocus on the F2AS. MF would be cheaper and pre-AI cheaper still. If you plan to also use the lenses on a more recent camera, AF may be worth it. I have both AF and MF lenses that I use on my F, my F2 and my new D750. I had the pre-ai lenses converted so they would work on the digisnapper. Frankly, I find manual focus to be faster than autofocus.
Juan

 

[locutus]

The ergonomics for manual focus use aren't so nice on the AF/AFD/AFS lenses, short throws, not that well damped etc.

Start with the AI primes, they are affordable and perfect on a F2.

 

[Hans Mulders]

Thanks for your quick replies.
I'm aware that AF does not worm on the F2.
I will think about the remark of Locutus that Manuel focus is not so convienient on AF lenses.

 

[bdial]

+ 1 on the advice to stick with MF lenses, with the possible exception of any plans you may have for getting an AF body.

I have a couple of AF zooms that came with some AF bodies, while they are usable on MF bodies, as noted they don't have much damping, and the focus ring is very small, presumably because it's only meant to be used that way occasionally rather than all the time.

I think MF lenses on AF bodies are a better match when mixing AF and MF. For most of the bodies, the AF circuitry acts as an "electronic rangefinder" to confirm your focus, which can be useful in bad light.

Optically, there is no real advantage with the AF lenses, my understanding is that in most cases, the optical formulas and coatings are the same as the MF counterparts. One plus might be weight, since many of the AF lenses are plastic construction, they are a lot lighter than the brass and aluminum MF lenses.

If you do decide to go with an AF lens, you need to be careful about getting one that has an f-stop ring, a lot of the newer ones don't, as the aperture is controlled by the camera body.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Since I move over from Olympus OM to Nikon I wonder what would be the best to do?
I bought a Nikon F2AS in almost mint condition with a 50 mm 2.0 MF lens.
As far as I know the later AF lenses will also fit on this body.
I want prime lenses only 24 mm and 135 mm to begin with.
any recommendations on it? should I get a AI lens or the later AF types?

Thanks for reading and advise

I'd go for theMF lenses to save money but would get the AF lenses if you can afford it and if you may upgrade your body one day

 

[Paul Howell]

Your choices for MF lens is very good, not only Nikon but some very good 3rd party lens as well. I shoot about 80% of the time with my AF Pentax and Minolta lens.

 

[Chan Tran]

As Ralph said if you think you may get an AF camera later then may be it's a good idea to go for the AF. However, for the F2AS the MF is not only less expensive but works better. The focusing ring is larger and is better damp. It also looks better on a manual focus camera.

 

[ac12]

+1 on the manual focus lenses.

IMHO, the AF lenses do not feel as nice to focus with manually as the manual focus (MF) lenses.
So unless you have in mind to get an AF camera, I would stick to the MF lenses.
Besides when you get an AF camera, that is a reason to get AF lenses
Though if the lens is old, it may need a CLA, as the grease in the focusing mechanism may have dried up and gotten stiff.

With a MF zoom lens, I found that the 1-ring push/pull zooms are much easier to use (for me) than a 2-ring zoom. I can zoom and focus without moving my left hand on the lens.

 

[Hans Mulders]

Thanks all of you!
I'm convinced to go for the MF lenses.
It will be primes only, starting with the 24 mm 2.8 and 135 mm 2.8.
These I used most on the Olympus om.

Best regards
Hans

 

[Chan Tran]

That's for sure on the 135mm. Nikon only makes the 135mm f/2 DC in AF form and if you don't need nor want the DC and f/2 it cost you dearly.

 

[flavio81]

Optically, there is no real advantage with the AF lenses, my understanding is that in most cases, the optical formulas and coatings are the same as the MF counterparts.

For the early (late '80s) AF lenses, the formulas were even inferior to the MF lenses!! Nikon took some designs from the Series E (cheaper) lenses and fit them straight into the AF incarnations. That is, lower performing optical formulas than the MF equivalents.

I think this was the case with the 28/2.8 AF, 70-210/4 AF and others.

Then you have the latest G series; some of them have pretty good, very improved formulas (i.e. 50/1.4G), but they don't have a diaphragm ring, which makes them incompatible with most Nikon classic cameras, and they are as ugly as cancer. They have probably been designed by a gangsta hip-hop singer.

 

[flavio81]

Thanks all of you!
I'm convinced to go for the MF lenses.
It will be primes only, starting with the 24 mm 2.8 and 135 mm 2.8.
These I used most on the Olympus om.

Best regards
Hans

Don't discount pre-AI lenses as well; the Nikkor-N-C 24/2.8 is very desirable. The Nikkor-Q 135/2.8 or Nikkor-Q-C 135/2.8 should be a very fine lens as well.
I have the Nikkor-Q 135/3.5, a really sharp lens. I also own the Nikkor-O 35/2.0 which is very appreciated... and many other pre-AI lenses.

The Nikkor-P 105/2.5 is probably (along with the AI version) the best Nikon tele lens ever made, so get it if you can. I'm in the hunt for one.

By the way, here "-C" means "multicoated". The first letter is the number of elements:

T three (only one Nikkor lens that i know of)
Q four -- i.e. 135/2.8, 135/3.5, 200/4
P five -- i.e. 105/2.5
H six -- i.e. 28/3.5, 50/2
S seven -- i.e. 50/1.4
O eight -- i.e. 35/2
N nine -- i.e. 24/2.8
UD eleven -- i.e. 20/3.5

With the F2AS, you will need to do stop-down metering with these. But with the older Photomic (photometer/viewfinder) for the F2 camera, it will give you open aperture metering and a very clear display of aperture and shutter speed. Better than the one you get in the F2AS viewfinder. (I have owned the F2AS plus the classic F2 Photomic). I also found the LED "+ O -" display more intrusive than the old analog needle.

This is because on the "A" photomics (for AI lenses), the aperture number is read optically from the lens aperture ring, which is tiny and seldom lit correctly. While with the pre-AI lenses, the aperture number is read optically from inside the viewfinder, receiving a lot of light (from the window on top of the viewfinder). The result:

1. Clearer numbers
2. Shutter speed and Aperture number are displayed close together (unlike with the A or AS viewfinders).

 

[carlostaiwan]

I was in the same dilemma last year, i went for

28mm f2.8 Ai
50mm f1.4 Ai-s
135mm f2.8 E-series
+
24-120mm f3.5-5.6D (AF)
50mm f1.8D (AF)

I use a FM2 (main camera) , F100 and D800 (Digital), most of the time I use the MF in the three cameras, but I like to have a versatile zoom, for a short trip, or maybe if im lazy that day. The best thing of this combo is the great quality of image, and the compatibility among all the models. I know is weird to have 2x50mm, but I believe every nikon owner should have the f1.8D, fast, cheap, small and realiable.

 

[PGillin]

AF for any zooms, the improvements made in that field in the 90's and early 2000's are worth it. The 80-200 and 20-35 2.8 are not inexpensive but they are good value relative to quality and comparable current offerings.
The AF-d lenses don't have such bad MF as some people say, but they aren't as good as the AI and AI-s series. Personally I don't find going back and forth between an AI-s 50/1.2 and AF-d/1.8 to be that jarring, except that the AF-d has a flogged aperture ring that feels quite sloppy.
(I guess I would say to lean towards the metal AF-d lenses, which most of those considered "pro" quality are, aside from the 50/1.4)
Also, though this may or may not matter to you, the AF-d lenses tend to look out of place on the F2 & older cameras, the AI and pre-AI lenses on the F5 & newer, with the F3, (debatably) F4 and FM/FE series generally coming off ok aesthetically with either.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thanks all of you!
I'm convinced to go for the MF lenses.
It will be primes only, starting with the 24 mm 2.8 and 135 mm 2.8.
These I used most on the Olympus om.

Best regards
Hans

I have the 135mm f3.5 Q and the 135mm f2.8 QC and the 135mm QC is one of the sharpest Nikkor lenses I have ever used. The 135Q is really good too for it's smaller size, but I find the 135mm f2.8 QC just fantastic and it's very sharp even at f2.8. Do not overlook this lens.

 

[narsuitus]

Nikon lens should I go for AF or MF

I want prime lenses only 24 mm and 135 mm to begin with.

For my Nikon F2 manual focus bodies, I went for manual focus primes lenses. My 24 is the f/2 and my 135 is also an f/2.

My Nikon F4 auto focus bodies work well with my manual focus prime lenses. However, I went for auto focus zoom lenses for the F4. My manual focus F2 works well with my 20-35mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8, and 80-200mm f/2.8 auto focus zoom lenses.

In addition to Nikon lenses, also consider Zeiss manual focus prime lenses.



135mm f/2 Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr