Older lens vs newer lens.

dan00001

dan00001

Messages
290
Name
daniel
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm going to buy a cheap 50mm lens for my new to me Nikon d700. Do I buy the 50mm f/1/8D, or something older such as the 50mm f/1.8AI, which by all accounts will give better quality images, but I lose the ability for autofocus?

Thanks.
 
Sounds like the question is do you want AF or not?
Have you ever used manual focus lenses before? If you haven't, then are you willing to give it a go, or would you prefer to keep it simple and known, with AF?
Does the D700 have good provision for determining focus when you're manually focussing? Things like focus peaking make manual focus much easier but I think that's a mirrorless technology...
Does your photography depend on rapid accurate focussing (sport, animals, portraits, people), or do you have time to set up where manual focus will cause less of an issue (landscape, macro) or will you be zone focussing for street photography, setting the focus to 6 feet and job done?

If the difference in quality is only pixel deep (i.e. it's imperceptible at full size) then the choice is more about AF or MF.
 
From what I've been told in a couple of shops, the older, screw driven lens is among the best of the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 lenses and gives the f/1.4 a run for its money at f/2 or narrower. It also has a decent throw from near to infinity focus, allowing finer manual adjustments than the later models. AF is marginally slower than the later lenses but not enough to be a problem in real life.
 
I'm mainly interested in portrait photography, not studio works but more street style of photography, and my main subject will likely be my son. I would prefer autofocus, but my main thought for going older is image quality, especially bokeh quality. I guess I also feel as if an older lens may give a different, more film like feel to my photographs, but that could be completely imaginary on my part.

Did camera manufacturers use better quality glass/materials in the pre digital era? Would I even notice a difference? Ken Rockwell certainly sing the praises of older Nikon lenses.

If I do go for a newer model, is it worth paying extra for the f/1.8G AF-S model over the D model?

I do have a Nikon 35mm f/1.8G on my Nikon D90 and rather like that lens.
 
What lens have you got at the moment? Try manual focusing with that to see how easy it is, I don't think that DSLRs are very easy to manual focus unlike the old SLRs
 
I've got the 35mm which is a DX lens, but I can have a go with that before I make up my mind. I am just waiting on a CF card which should hopefully be here tomorrow,
 
Actually, more modern lenses which are being made specifically for high resolution digital sensors are better than anything produced previously (in optical terms at least). The Best 50mm for Nikon currently is the Sigma 1.4 ART. The best Nikon 50mm is the D lens, but there's not a lot in it IMO.

Personally, I haven't found a use/need for a 50mm in several decades...
 
dan00001 said:
I also feel as if an older lens may give a different, more film like feel to my photographs
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I never experienced that with older lenses. The "film look" is best achieved with actual film, or decent digital processing. It could be that the lack of modern coatings will give it a different look, but in my experience, it's barely distinguishable from modern lenses. Your mileage may vary of course!
 
I have lots of older lenses and they work nicely - on my film cameras. As has been said - use lenses that are meant for digital to get the best results. Older lenses will work, but if you want the film look, shoot with film. Some software can replicate it after a fashion, but it never looks 'right' IMO.

I have a 50mm 1.8D and it works with autofocus OK on my digital cameras too. They're quite cheap to buy too as they're mostly 'plastic fantastic'.

As for manual focus, I use it a lot, but it will really slow you down. Definitely more suited to film cameras than digital.

If I were going to use a D700 and wanted to use it around that focal length, I'd look for a 24-120 f4 then you're covered. For a 'kit' lens, they are sharper than a sharp thing and at a great price second-hand.
 
I use manual lenses a lot including film era primes and I have a Nikon 50mm f1.4 AI-S. Old film era lenses can be very nice but modern lenses and indeed their coatings too have moved on so much and, as said above, DSLR's are not great tools to use manual focus lenses on because they're simply just not not built for it.

If you want to get into film era lenses imo you are much better off with a mirrorless camera as manual focusing on a mirrorless camera is a joy.
 
Wouldn’t go for the older, I’ve owned both.
.
Af is handy if it’s dark.
Mf is a pain for fast moving subjects unless you use zone focus (difficult with a 50mm due to narrow dof)
.
Optical quality wise, honestly you won’t see any difference (real life pictures, not studio).
.
with your d700 (which is heavy) adding the older Lens will make it a bit heavier.
The newer 50mm will be lighter.
Weight matters, especially with a heavy camera.
.
If for whatever reason you go for the older 50mm at least get the pancake version.

Marino
 
I had a D610 for several years - a step up from the D700 - and both 50 f1.8 D and G. The G is faster and more accurate to focus than the D, and I think a little more neutral and sharper. The D was a good lens, but an older design. I would not choose an a older MF lens for general use for the reasons already given.

What I often found with the D610 was that in low light AF didn't work, but I could still manually focus an AF lens using the focus confirm light. No idea if the D700 has one.
 
Thank you, I like having the ability to separate my subject from the background and I like bokeh, so want a fast lens. I also like my 35mm on my D90, hence the reason for 50mm for the D700. I'll probably just get a 50mmm f/1,8D or G now, and then in the future probably add an 85mm and maybe a zoom lens after Christmas.

Thank you for all the advice.
 
dan00001 said:
Thank you, I like having the ability to separate my subject from the background and I like bokeh, so want a fast lens. I also like my 35mm on my D90, hence the reason for 50mm for the D700. I'll probably just get a 50mmm f/1,8D or G now, and then in the future probably add an 85mm and maybe a zoom lens after Christmas.

Thank you for all the advice.
Click to expand...

Just be aware that some of the older Nikon zooms we're fine and some surprisingly poor. Research carefully so you can avoid the rubbish.
 
I had the 50mm 1.8D for a few years. Very good, certainly for the money. I've since changed it for the G so that I have AF on both my DX and FX bodies (plus it has the dust seal at the mount). Optically both seemed great, so I'm sure you'd be happy with either.
 
Marino said:
Wouldn’t go for the older, I’ve owned both.
Click to expand...
Same here. The AF-D version is that bit sharper than the older AI version. There were later AI-S versions that were a little better, but you can't go wrong with the AF-D version, as long as your camera has the mechanical AF connection. The later AF-S G version is reputedly a little sharper still, but more expensive.

Mintchocs said:
I wouldn’t really recommend going for manual focus on a DSLR. It’s not that easy to focus accurately.
Click to expand...
This, as well. On a mirrorless camera with focus peaking, older MF lenses are great, but on DSLRs they are fiddly and slow to use. Ok perhaps with static subjects. Wide angle lenses require less critical focussing of course, especially with smaller apertures, so some older WAs can be very good value.
 
Last edited:
That is a bargain and FYI, I have a 50/1.4 Ai...but for the FM2. For the D700, the D is much more suitable.
 
Yes, I think I would miss autofocus, especially as my son doesn't stay still for more than a few seconds.
 
dan00001 said:
A 50mm f/1,8D came up for sale locally for £40 with a Hoya filter included. I think I had a bargain.
Click to expand...
I'll say. I paid £75 for mine some years ago (mint, looked unused), and I thought that was a bargain then. it's an excellent lens, probably the best value for money lens you can find for the F-mount. One great aspect of the AF f1.8 D is that it has virtually no distortion, so is an excellent lens for copying artworks/2D illustrations etc. And because it's such a lightweight construction (some might think it a little 'plasticky, but I think it's still better made than say the Canon version from around that time), AF with the mechanical connection is still very fast; the AF-S G version wasn't significantly quicker for me. Nothing to really care much about anyway. I think it's a very underrated lens, hence the low prices. I prefer the f1.8 versions to most f1.4s, I just find them a little sharper.
 
Last edited:
Unless the vignetting is a massive problem I wouldn't worry about it as it takes seconds to correct post capture. If you've already made your mind up and I'm too late then be happy with your new lens.
 
Enjoy your new old lens.

Yes MF with narrow depth of field on a DSLR takes a lot of practice if there is any subject or camera movement. Better on mirrorless but still tricky - so I go for AF in those conditions.

I think both the 1.8 and 1.4 AF-D are nice lenses - you got a bargain there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top