I would like to hear from users of Nikon's 24-50 AFD lens. It does not seem to be mentioned very much in the various lens threads that I've read; and then seems to get mixed reviews. I did read that "Moose" thinks it's OK, but I don't know just how much stock to put into that. I'm mostly interested in how you use this shorter zoom(for what type subjects) and especially your reviews on it's image quality. Is the "D" version worth the extra bucks over the non-"D" model? Thanks so much for your comments

-- Bob Thommes (bthommes@sutton.esu9.k12.ne.us), June 29, 1999

Answers

Are you the same Bob Thommes who posted this ad? Seems strange that you would ask about a lens you have already owned. What was YOUR experience???? Or am I missing something?

http://www.photo.net/gc/view-ad-history.tcl?classified_ad_id=217665 Ad 217665

Your Workspace : Classifieds : Ad History

1999-04-04: FS: Nikon 24-50 f3.3-4.5 AFD LN- $250.00

This lens is in like-new condition. Comes with box, caps, IB. No marks of any kind anywhere. $250.00 and I'll ship it in the US. Please e-mail.

Originally posted 1999-04-04 by bthommes@mail.sutton.esu9.k12.ne.us (Bob Thommes)

Note: this page shows the full ad history, including all intermediate edits before the ad was deleted. This can help community members judge whether an advertiser is engaging in deceptive practices such as claiming that an item has been reduced in price.

-- Henry Dorsett (Henry_Dorsett@Hotmail.Com), June 29, 1999.

Henry, I think you hit the nail right on the head.

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), June 30, 1999.

Boys, boys. Your research is correct, Henry. However, I sold the 24-50 before ever using it in favor of another lens that came available shortly after I received it. I'm now reconsidering the possibility of purchasing another one; as the focal length "seems" as though it "might' be what I need. I really don't like the way this "conversation" is headed. I must state that I'm interested in an honest reply to my quiry. So please stay on the subject or don't bother to reply. Is this asking to

-- Bob (bthommes@server.sutton.esu9.k12.ne.us), June 30, 1999.

Hi Bob, to answer your question: I gave one such lens away without thinking and missed it so much that I bought another shortly at a camera shop close-down sale. I use it more often as a travel lens than my 35-70mm/2.8 as it's lighter and more compact. The 24mm is especially useful in cramped quarters, such as narrow streets and alleyways of historical towns and villages.

Optically, I don't think there's any question about its sharpness. One small complaint I have with this lens is the noticeable barrel distortion at the 24mm end--hard to qualify, but it's just a touch more noticeable than I would like; others may find it acceptable. The 50mm end seems to be completely free of distortion (a recent lens review in Practical Photography says that the distortion disappears at focal lengths longer than 35mm). I've learnt to avoid shooting anything straight on with the wideangle end of this lens. On the whole, I think you'll like this lens if you shoot more on wideangle than telephoto.

Mine's a non-'D' version, no big loss to me without the 'D' thing since my current Nikon bodies are pre-'D' models. Of course, if you're using a 'D'-capable camera, it's best that you get the AFD version and make full use of your camera's technology. I read that the manual-focus ring on the 'D' version has better friction than the non-'D', but otherwise they are the same in every aspect. Cheers.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), July 01, 1999.