Nikon Nikkor 105mm 2.8 vs Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm 2.8D

[jands]

Seeing that the newest version of this lens is above my price range, I thought about buying used. I'm having a hard time deciding between the old 2.8D or the even older 2.8 (manual). So far I've found the 2.8D between 400 and 600 bucks, but the manual between 200 and 350.

I'm tempted to go manual, because I like the idea of being forced to work that way. Although, I haven't tried that much on the gear I already own. What's important to me, though, is the sharpness. Is the 2.8D sharper then the manual and therefore, coupled with the AF option, would be worth the extra money? I do understand that because I would be using manual focus on the older lens, it might not appear as sharp as the autofocus lens, until I figure out what I'm doing.

Any thoughts on your experiences is appreciated.

 

[manaheim]

My experience is "liking to be forced to work with lesser tools" is usually an excuse when one cannot afford the better ones. That said, you said you are budget conscious, so that makes perfect sense, but rather than make an excuse ... embrace it. The reality is that working with a better tool is ALWAYS a better choice if you can afford it, but there's nothing wrong with putting in a bit more elbow grease when you can't.

Would you be happy to dig a trench with a spoon? Of course not. If it was your only choice, however, you would make do.

I'm sure you'd be very happy with either lens, but if you can afford the AF then get the AF. It will give you more capability.

Beyond that, read the lens reviews for each, be sure to be mindful of potential quality issues with a used lens, and know what you're getting into before you buy.

 

[shufti]

Not owning these lenses or knowing how they perform, whether the manual is sharper than the AF is also a question of how keen your eyesight is and how well you use it.

 

[kundalini]

.... a question of how keen your eyesight is and how well you use it.

Says the guy that squints. Sorry, couldn't help myself.


For macro work, I manual focus. However, I have the G mount and use the lens for more than macro. My eyesight has gone south so AF is important to me for general use. I would hazard a guess that the older models are designed for MF and thus have a better handleing in that regard, but it's only a guess. photozone.de, fred miranda are a couple of good resources for lens reviews.

 

[shufti]

That's my mongolian droopy eye-lid DNA

 

[shufti]

Here you go.. mark 1 eyeball

 

[baturn]

AF-S Micro NIKKOR 85mm 1:3.5G ED

 

[Derrel]

Read Bjorn's review here: Special Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount

Take note, that the 105/2.8 AF-D micro loses a LOT of focal length at closest distance, being only 60mm in focal length at MFD, whereas the older 105/2.8 Ai-S loses less focal length, and is 88mm in EFL at MFD.

 

[digitalescape]

I own the Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm 2.8D, and to me the auto focus is about useless for macros. However it helps for head shots.

 

[jands]

Hmmm. All very good points. I should have mentioned that I plan to use it mostly for portrait work. I'm not sure how much that changes things.

Derrel, after reading the reviews you posted, I almost feel like I shouldn't even buy this lens!

Thanks for everyone's input. I'll give it some thought and see what I decide. If anything, I can always re-sell it, I guess.

 

[Derrel]

Well, if you want a lens for portrait work, the choice is clear--you want the 105mm f/2.5 Ai or Ai-S, and NOT one of the Micro-Nikkors!!!! The 105/2.5 is "the lens" that elevated Nikon to fame!

 

[baturn]

Don't see the lens I referred to listed. Forgot to mention it's VR.

 

[jands]

I guess I liked the idea that I could do both. But maybe I'm thinking about wrong. Your suggestion is definitely cheaper.

 

[jands]

Derrel, should I be too concerned with AI vs AI-S? Research is telling me that there really is not a difference (especially on my camera), but that the AI feels more durable. Any insight?

 

[j-dogg]

My experience is "liking to be forced to work with lesser tools" is usually an excuse when one cannot afford the better ones. That said, you said you are budget conscious, so that makes perfect sense, but rather than make an excuse ... embrace it. The reality is that working with a better tool is ALWAYS a better choice if you can afford it, but there's nothing wrong with putting in a bit more elbow grease when you can't.

Would you be happy to dig a trench with a spoon? Of course not. If it was your only choice, however, you would make do.
when it gets in and you can compare them with the 2.8

I'm sure you'd be very happy with either lens, but if you can afford the AF then get the AF. It will give you more capability.

Beyond that, read the lens reviews for each, be sure to be mindful of potential quality issues with a used lens, and know what you're getting into before you buy.

I have a Canon EF system with L lenses and an adapter to use my old Nikkor pre-AI glass. I just got a 105 f2.5 pre-AI from like the 60's, I'll post up some results here

What separates pre-AI, from AI and AI-S is a couple small things, and they all have to do with mounting.

Pre-AI lens have no ring on the mount to tell the camera it's max aperture, it uses a bayonet (most Nikon lenses up into the 80's have this bayonet)

AI has the bayonet AND a ring on the bottom of the lens to be used with AI cameras like Nikon FG and Nikon F3, anything after 1977. AI stands for Automatic Indexing.

AI-S does away with the bayonet mount for the pre-AI bodies like the Nikon F and the Nikkormat (The Nikkormat FT3 is an AI body) I think there are a couple other small differences but those are the big ones, I'm a pre-AI Nikon guy and a Canon EF guy, so Derrel or any of the other Nikon buds here will correct me if I'm wrong.

There is a website that tells you which digital bodies take which old manual lenses and I can't remember it but it's been posted here before.