Nikon zoom lenses any good for film?

Odot · Apr 26, 2017

Right now i am looking at a AF 28-105mm D lens and a AF-S 24-85mm G. The 24-85mm is obviously newer but is it really better in terms of sharpness and overall image quality?

If you have a different recommendation thats better than these two lenses (af only), feel and shoot!

Thanks you guys

bunip · Apr 26, 2017

If you shoot film I think the best choice is the older one as the AF-S 24-85mm G has more distortion. If you're looking for portability my suggestion is the 28-70 AF f/3,5-4,5 D, that is smaller, lighter, top quality (first aspherical glass in Nikon non professional lenses) and very cheap. Bought my second last week for 35 EURO from Germany.
P.S. and if you have any manual focus body it's perfect.

Leigh B · Apr 26, 2017

I would suggest you review the reviews on Ken Rockwell's site.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

He has a lot of good objective information about ?all? modern Nikon lenses.
He writes as a shooter, not an engineer. I've found his views to be pretty accurate.

There are variations in performance from one particular lens to others of the same model.
That's due to manufacturing tolerances.
But from any reputable manufacturer they're in a narrow range.

- Leigh

ron917 · Apr 26, 2017

Both lenses have a good reputation. Newer lenses may be sharper, but often have more distortion and vignetting. Distortion and vignetting are easily fixable in a non-analog work flow, so manufacturers have been compromising in those areas lately.

What body are you planning to use with the lens? The AF 28-105mm D is compatible with all F mount film bodies that I know of - it has an aperture ring. The G lenses have no aperture ring so they are usable with fewer film bodies and exposure modes.

Ken Rockwell's Nikon lens compatibility chart is the most useful I've found: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

Karl K · Apr 26, 2017

The 28-105mm AF-D is very inexpensive (about $100), optically superb, and is compatible with almost every film and digital Nikon camera made since 1977.
The build quality is excellent, not high on the heavy-duty pro scale, but not all plastic like the cheap Nikon kit lenses.
I use the macro feature quite often, aided by the internal automatic focusing, which is quite fast and accurate.
The rear mount is all metal, a must-have for me. Weight is about one pound.
If you can live with f/3.5-4.5 as your maximum apertures, then I would highly recommend this lens.
For a budget-priced alternative, Tokina makes a similar lens, which is almost as good, now selling for about $60 on the auction site.

Gerry M · Apr 26, 2017

I have used the 28-70 3.5-4.5 AFD and the 28-105 3.5-4.5 AFD on film bodies with very satisfactory results. Also, the 35-70, f2.8 AFD is a pro class lens. The manual focus 35-70, 3.5 fixed aperture lens will equal prime lens IQ. I am referring to Nikkors. The last 2 are large and heavy lenses.
I have found this site a very accurate and useful reference: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating

Regards,

Gerry

flavio81 · Apr 26, 2017

Odot said:
Right now i am looking at a AF 28-105mm D lens and a AF-S 24-85mm G. The 24-85mm is obviously newer but is it really better in terms of sharpness and overall image quality?

If you have a different recommendation thats better than these two lenses (af only), feel and shoot!

Thanks you guys

For what it is worth, the 28-85/3.5-4.5 AF-D lens is a good one, in my experience. Low distortion, zero distortion at 35mm (where it has also best image quality), and good to very good sharpness through all the range.

The only negatives were the odd filter size and of course the weight and bulk. But i find 28-85 a very useful range, better than 28-70.

If you want a cheap, small, light, useful zoom, the 35-80/4-5.6 AF is good. Yes, it is slow, but really compact, contrasty and sharp. And the 35-80 range is (imo) more useful than 35-70. The little lens is as light as a 50/1.8!

A great outdoors zoom and I miss mine.

Leigh B · Apr 26, 2017

ron917 said:
The G lenses have no aperture ring so they are usable with fewer film bodies and exposure modes.

It's more significant than that.
The G lenses do not have the mechanical lever that controls the aperture.

Aperture size is strictly under electronic control. So older mechanical cameras cannot change it.
Unpowered, the aperture is closed to minimum, and will remain so forever on a manual camera.
If you want to shoot manual focus at minimum aperture, a G lens will work on a non-AF camera.

- Leigh

ac12 · Apr 26, 2017

Odot,
What camera are you using this lens on?

I have the 28-85 on my F4, and find it works just fine, for ME.
But then, I also have longer zooms that start at 70 or 80mm so I do not need the extra reach of a longer "normal/mid range zoom."

MultiFormat Shooter · Apr 26, 2017

Leigh B said:
It's more significant than that. The G lenses do not have the mechanical lever that controls the aperture.

That's the E lenses, not the G lenses, that don't have a mechanical linkage for the aperture. I have a couple of G lenses, and they definitely have a mechanical linkage. From what I understand, the E (electromagnetic aperture) lenses are not fully compatible with any film body.

Ai Print · Apr 26, 2017

MultiFormat Shooter said:
From what I understand, the E (electromagnetic aperture) lenses are not fully compatible with any film body.

That is correct, my 200-500 5.6 VR E only works wide open on my F100. AF and VR do work however.

MultiFormat Shooter · Apr 26, 2017

Ai Print said:
That is correct, my 200-500 5.6 VR E only works wide open on my F100. AF and VR do work however.

Do you know/have you heard if Nikon will have a "firmware update" (or whatever) to allow film bodies to be operate the aperture of E lenses?

Ai Print · Apr 26, 2017

MultiFormat Shooter said:
Do you know/have you heard if Nikon will have a "firmware update" (or whatever) to allow film bodies to be operate the aperture of E lenses?

Good question and I have no idea although I can't imagine they are all that interested really. They have not been doing all that good financially in the past few years so I can't imagine film body compatibility is even on their list of priorities.

It's an interesting thought though, if both the cameras and the lenses have contacts like G lenses, what is the limitation of the E types, especially since both AF and VR work?

Leigh B · Apr 26, 2017

MultiFormat Shooter said:
That's the E lenses, not the G lenses, that don't have a mechanical linkage for the aperture. I have a couple of G lenses, and they definitely have a mechanical linkage. From what I understand, the E (electromagnetic aperture) lenses are not fully compatible with any film body.

You're correct in that the G lenses do have a coupling lever. My error.
I was looking at a modern G lens when I wrote that.
The lever is small and the light was poor, so I missed it.

The only E lenses I know were the el-cheapo series from the 1960s.

- Leigh

Alan Gales · Apr 26, 2017

Leigh B said:
The G lenses do not have the mechanical lever that controls the aperture.

- Leigh

Hello Leigh,

Ken Rockwell says that the "G" on G lenses stands for gelded. I though that was pretty funny!

I'm talking about the missing aperture ring on the modern G lenses.

Alan

Leigh B · Apr 26, 2017

Hi Alan,

Yes, I realize they don't have a control ring. I have a couple of those.

My comment about them lacking the actuating lever was incorrect.

- Leigh

blockend · Apr 27, 2017

The 28-80 3.5-5.6 AF-D lens is much better than it looks. It often comes with a late 90s entry level Nikon film body, in fact that's probably the cheapest way to buy one: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2880.htm

Nodda Duma · Apr 27, 2017

I'll second the 28-80. It's a really good lens if you can work within the limitations of the aperture.

narsuitus · Apr 27, 2017

Odot said:
If you have a different recommendation thats better than these two lenses (af only), feel and shoot!

Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 AF (left)

Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 AF (right)

Nikon Mid-Range Zooms by Narsuitus, on Flickr

cooltouch · May 1, 2017

Thanks for those photos. The photo of the 28-70 reveals that it is an ED lens -- so that means it must be good, eh?

I have two AF Nikons -- an F4 and an N80 -- and a small selection of AF Nikkors -- all D lenses, which I prefer. I have the 28-105mm AF D, the 50mm f/1.8 AF D, and the 70-300mm AF D ED. All three lenses have provided excellent results for me on my AF Nikons. One thing I like that all D lenses appear to have in common is a focusing collar that is large enough such that one can get a good grip on it. It also has enough resistance when being rotated such that it gives a good approximation of a manual focus lens. I think that these lenses can easily be used on any AI or AIs compatible body, which is important to me because I have several MF Nikons, but I don't have any MF Nikkors with the ranges of these two AF zooms. The 50/1.8 is a sheer pleasure to use because it is so compact, light, and very, very sharp.

RichardJack · May 1, 2017

Your lens is only as good as the film you choose and exposure. If your serious about image quality stick with primes or move up to medium format. Most zoom lenses (even Gold ring Nikkors) will suffer wide open and at the minimum and maximum zoom setting. I've used just about every zoom lens mentioned in the posts here. Of these lenses I'd recommend the 24-70 f2.8 and 80-200 (or 70-200) f2.8. But it depends on subject matter as well, for portraits any will do, "for landscapes it's silly to use 35mm film" (quoted from Rockwell).

locutus · May 1, 2017

As for 28-70's, the original Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 (with circular screw in hood, smooth duraluminium shell) is another killer of a lens its very close to the Nikon 28-70/2.8 and can be had for cheap, down to 200 euros if you look around a bit.

vlasta · May 1, 2017

Odot said:
Right now i am looking at a AF 28-105mm D lens and a AF-S 24-85mm G.

My experiance with 28-105 D: above 50mm right end unsharp, regardless of f-stop.
I tried some more examples and all behaved same!

Disclaimer - 28-105D was used, and 4 more examples tested, on D700.

benveniste · May 1, 2017

locutus said:
As for 28-70's, the original Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8 (with circular screw in hood, smooth duraluminium shell) is another killer of a lens its very close to the Nikon 28-70/2.8 and can be had for cheap, down to 200 euros if you look around a bit.

Here's a good site for determining the various versions of the Tokina 28-70mm lenses.
http://www.johncaz.net/blog/tokina-at-x-pro-af-28-70mm-26-28

I have the "(PRO II WITH BAYONET HOOD)" version, and at least my copy is quite soft in the corners at 28mm. Since I typically use a 24-120mm for "freestyle" shoots, and rarely use a mid-range zoom for more planned shoots, it's one of my least used lenses.

M Carter · May 2, 2017

My experience -

The 35-70 2.8 AF is an all-metal little thing, was a top line lens back in the day and very capable (introduced around the time of the 8008 I believe) - but seriously prone to veiling flare. Nice macro capabilities but I eventually dumped mine due to the flare.

The 28-70 2.8 is a massive beast of a lens but insanely good. You "just stick with a prime lens" guys have obviously never owned one. These days my living comes from 4K video, corporate stuff, and that's on my camera 90% of the time, but it rocks on my film cameras (and man, it's glorious for video on a super-35/ APS-C sensor). It's an "S" lens with a notorious-for-failing focus motor, but buying one with a dead motor is like stealing if you don't rely on AF. Yeah, it's huge, but it's such a nice piece of glass. Looks just tits even wide open.

For a killer deal on a long tele, the 80-200 2.8 push-pull is a cool lens. Big and heavy, but easy to shoot handheld. At 2.8 the contrast and sharpness drops a hair, but it's actually a very pretty look, very flattering for people, kind of has a "glow" to it. F4ish it really tightens up. They can be found for three hundred bucks or so. Very little money for a whole lotta mojo. You can get more modern variants (zoom ring and tripod mount) either 80-200 or 70-200 for much more cash, but on a budget, it's really a badass lens. Lots of metal, even beaters can perform fine.

The 300 F4 AF is also a little monster of a lens; the 180 2.8 AF is also very impressive. Both were from the film era and should do fine on most bodies.

Nikon zoom lenses any good for film?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency