Nikon AF-S benefits , or not ?

mrgas

mrgas

Messages
3,420
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm on the lookout for a new lens for my D90 and have narrowed it down to a couple

what I was wondering is , seeing as i have the D90 with built in focus motor I can use most lenses that are Nikon fit and still have autofocus , but like for like is it still worth spending the extra on a lens with the built in motor or is there no advantage to this ? will relying on the motor in the body give the same results ?

hope this makes sense
 
I have both of them Graham (Yes, I know I slated the 70-200 for being too expensive..........:gag:...) It is faster ,but not a huge amount,IMO.

To the OP, depends on your budget first and foremost.
 
fracster said:
I have both of them Graham (Yes, I know I slated the 70-200 for being too expensive..........:gag:...) It is faster ,but not a huge amount,IMO.

To the OP, depends on your budget first and foremost.
Click to expand...

I can afford the lens with the built in motor , just asked the question in case i was spending money unnecessarily

thanks for the replies everyone
 
mrgas said:
I can afford the lens with the built in motor , just asked the question in case i was spending money unnecessarily

thanks for the replies everyone
Click to expand...

Fair does then, the 70-200 is faster, if you need/want that slight increase then go for it...........:thumbs:
 
The 300mm f/4 AF-S is very much faster than the 300mm f/4 AF-D. Can't speak for 70-200 AF-S VR vs 80-200 AF speeds though. Not used the 80-200.
 
Yes, there are major speed benefits when you comparevthe more moderns AF-S offerings against the older, 35mm film generation AF-D lenses.

However, don't be instantly drawn in by AF-S - on telephotos you'll see a massive difference from the AF-S lenses that may be of massive benefit if you're shooting rapid subject matter. However, as far as the wide lenses go, it's not going to be as much of a benefit because of the nature of wide-angle photography. I'd certainly not turn down AF-S but many of the AF-D lenses still cut it very well - the short primes I own and the 60mm micro Nikkor are very good performers.
 
fracster said:
I have both of them Graham (Yes, I know I slated the 70-200 for being too expensive..........:gag:...) It is faster ,but not a huge amount,IMO.
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree there, Ade. I found it very had to get the 80-200 to focus quick enough at the chicane at Knockhill (where the cars are coming up over a blind brow), but the 70-200 nails it every time...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I'd have to disagree there, Ade. I found it very had to get the 80-200 to focus quick enough at the chicane at Knockhill (where the cars are coming up over a blind brow), but the 70-200 nails it every time...
Click to expand...

I used both on Tuesday for an animal type event, both on 700`s, yep the 70-200 is quicker, but I would n`t say a lot. If you need AF speed and have the dosh, then that is the one to get.

As an aside, if you can`t get a photo of a car coming along a track in a pre-arranged shape, then give me your gear and pack it in...................:naughty:
 
I think it would vary depending on the body you're using Fracster.

The in-body motor for focusing speed on AF-D lenses is fairly dependent upon the body, whereas the AF-S lenses will focus PDQ regardless.

On my N90s film body, the 300mm f/4 AF-D vs AF-S there wasn't much in it (but it was still noticable). On my old D100, the difference was night and day.
 
fracster said:
As an aside, if you can`t get a photo of a car coming along a track in a pre-arranged shape, then give me your gear and pack it in...................:naughty:
Click to expand...


It's not quite that simple, the cars are travelling up hill towards you, but you can't see them at all until they launch over the top at probably 80mph, so you only have a fraction of a second to get focus lock. With the AF-D that extra fraction of a second that the in-body motor takes to turn the focus screw is enough to miss the shot.
 
I know, it was my pitiful attempt at humour....................:coat:
 
On anything except a *-200 telephoto being used for action, the difference in focusing speed will be pretty imperceptible and certainly unimportant.

AF-S is not a reason to get a lens over another, with the exception of the above, it's just a nice benefit of new lenses.

All in all it makes b****r all difference, I've had some AF lenses that focused like a lens possessed, and I own at least one AF-S lens which seems like it just woke up all the time.

Bear in mind that with focusing it is the cameras computations and refining which can take a lot of time, not just the actual speed of the lens doing it's thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top