Folks, I keep hearing from seasoned Nikon users that AI lenses are better in construction than the new AF lenses. Is this true ? Also the Nikon FE2, FM2 are being sought after . I'm a Leica user switched from Nikon years ago and now thinking about adding small Nikon system back to my collection. I plan to get an FM2, FE2 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 55mm micro f2.8,105mm f2.5 and 300mm f4.5 ED-IF. I heard in order to keep the same F-mount Nikon is sort of jury-rigged different combination of AF-D, AF-S, etc.. for their lenses and the quality was sacrificed somewhat. Want to hear your opinion on this.

-- Charles Nguyen (cnguyen@lucent.com), August 07, 2000

Answers

Charles,

Good question. I have used every vintage of Nikkor lens since the Nikon F came out. Based on nothing but experience... I can say that my opinion is that AI and AIS lenses are not just slightly, but very much better than the current offerings from what use to be the professional standard in SLR cameras.

I get beaten up when ever I say this in various web sites, but anyone who thinks that todays Nikon lenses are as good as the older Manual Focus versions, obviously never used the lenses as hard as they are capable of being used. I've dropped lenses on concrete, thrown my camera bag to the ground during Desert Storm, and walked for hours in the rain in Thailand. I have never had a missed shot due to a MF Nikkor failing on me.

Just so you don't think I am a snob, I did jump into Autofocus when Nikon came out with a decent camera... sold my older manual focus lenses and bought the eqivalent AF models. Every AF lens failed within 2 years. Elements shifted freely within the lens body, aperture blades failed close during exposure, and all of my confidence in the product was gone. I need reliability for my equipment... the client doesn't care why I didn't get the shot.

I re-bought my favorite MF lenses used and all is well again. These things just don't quit. They are sharp, strong and now a days... very affordable because fools, (like me), sold them to buy autofocus. There is a lot of advertiser's rhetoric that you need all of the latest bells and whistles... Matrix, D- technology, etc... Well the only ones that need them are those who don't want to learn to focus, expose, and compose. People took photos for years under the harshest conditions with the older Nikkors... there is no reason that they are "obsolete" today. people use to keep their cameras and lenses forever, now everytime the "next" model with the next higher number comes out everyone suddenly thinks there current equipment is crap. Why?

For anyone who dosen't agree, come see me in the year 2030 with the AF lens you bought today, and I'll let you use my 1970 AI lenses to take a picture... I'm sure yours won't be operating.

For more debate and info visit "the Nikonians" at:

http://www.nikonians.com/

You will find many similer (friendly) arguments as well as opinions that are different than mine.

Al

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), August 07, 2000.

"Well the only ones that need them are those who don't want to learn to focus, expose, and compose"

Are the only ones who needs computers are those who don't want to learn abacus, slide rule and arithmatics?

-- Chuck Fan (chaohui@msn.com), August 07, 2000.

There is little doubt that the Nikon equipment from days gone by was some of the best built camera equipment ever made, and the heavy duty helicoil focusing lenses were much more rugged than the new spin focus lenses. Some of the new lenses may be a bit sharper, but I agree the new stuff won't hold up to heavy use nearly as well. I bought a used 180 ED AF lens that had seen a bit of use, and the focusing was all stiff so I sent it in to be lubed. It ended up needing a whole new focusing unit. The Nikon repairman told me that is typical for the newer equipment that is used heavily. You have to admit, the marketing folks at the camera companies sure have hit it rich by the joining of computers and cameras. Now cameras can become obsolete in just a few years,like computers, whereas before they were things that you'd keep for 20 years. I'm not a total anti-technology type of person, and I do own a Nikon N90S along with my older mechanical cameras. I bought it because I thought it would help me get better action shots when I was working for a few car magazines--I don't really think it made any improvements in my shooting if you really want to know. But I think I'll draw the line there and keep the N90s until I break it or wear it out before purchasing whatever "new & improved" version Nikon comes out with.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 07, 2000.

The lenses are only part of the equation when it comes to getting sharp pictures. Once you go much longer than a 200mm lens, vibration takes over from optics as the determining factor in sharpness. After a lot of disappointment with long lenses and lightweight camera bodies, and a fair amount of experimentation, I came to the conclusion that it was almost impossible to get a sharp long-tele shot with a vertical travelling shutter, free mounted on a tripod. The natural mode of vibration is in the vertical plane, and the shutter just sets the whole thing oscillating. Two tripod setups are a pain in the back, and damping the vibration with your hands is likely to upset any careful framing.
To cut a long story short, I bought a battered old F2, and instantly got far sharper results. A year or so later I bought another F2 in better condition. This was 15 years ago. Both cameras are still going strong and I hardly ever use anything else.
If the shutter orientation and weight of the camera body can make that much difference, I shudder to think (puny pun) what an AF motor would do to the sharpness. And I'm not going to waste film finding out, thanks.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), August 08, 2000.

No No Pete, what you need is the new Image stabilization lenses, don't you see? Its funny you mention the F2 and long lenses, because I got my best result years ago when I was doing a lot of super-telephoto work with an F2 with a plain matte screen and the mirror locked up. Really, the new technology is very interesting, and can help produce sharper images (like the Image stabilization), but you can probably obtain simialr results with good technique and an older camera, of this I am convinced. Only the most demanding split second types of shooting have benefited the most from the new technology, and also the host of aging photogs whose eyes are going south on them are able to still get great shots by letting the cumputer assist their eyes.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), August 08, 2000.

As a die-hard EOS user for 10 years, I have recently built a small manual focus kit. My choice was the FM2n, rugged and dependable. I have bought three lenses used: AIS 28 2.8, MF 50 1.4, and AFD 85 1.8. All for my B&W photography, such as travel and documenting. It makes an excellent and light unobstrusive kit. The AFD lens "feels" less tough than the MF Nikkors, but is delivers the goods. So my opinion on this, from my short experience, is that yes, some of the AF lenses do not seem as well built as the older MF lenses, but that is not exclusive to Nikon, is it?

-- Paulo Bizarro (pbizarro@cggp.pt), August 09, 2000.

Nikon has given us both pleasure and pain by keeping with the decades old F mount. Because of sticking to the limitations of the old F mount, we now have mind boggling complexities and incompatibilities even in the new, autofocus cameras. The new 80-400 VR lens, if it ever comes out, will work only with three newest cameras. VR will not work with any other Nikon. The oldest autofocus cameras which can use AF-S silent wave lenses are the N90s and F4. MF lenses cant meter with the new N80. Pre-AI lenses cant be used with AI bodies since they will cause damage. Newer Nikkor lenses dont have the meter coupling prong for old cameras... etcetc.etc. Why, why, WHY?

This is obviously lack of foresight and planning on Nikon's part. It is understandable if old manual lenses cant be used on new AF cameras, but incompatibilities within lenses and cameras produced just a few years ago? Ridiculous.

Nikon should have done what Minolta or Canon did. If they have a crippled mount, ditch the old F mount and move to a more comprehensive newer mount which can accomodate possible future extensions, instead of being blind and screwing us.

-- Steve Smith. (Steve_Smith@maui-mail.com), August 21, 2000.

FWIW, I use 3 brands.First was Pentax.Spotmatics and K1000plus a MX with winder.Added a ME for extra body when MX flash synch stopped working.I added a Leica M3 with lenses.I never sold my Pentaxes,when I purchased Nikons in 1970-71.I needed the Nikons because they didnt give me headaches due to viewfinder imcompatibility.Later I realized I reqd Glasses.I was sightly shortsighted.Pentax was set for for long sighted.The Nikons ad Leicas have been everywhere.They have worked hard.My MF Nikon lenses on a trip to Canada esp the 105 fell apart in my hand as I focused.I had all the lenses checked.They are still OK.The Ftn meters are all shot.When my daughter wanted to start taking photos she chose one of the Spotmatics.I started using them again and they`ve come with on trip to States with M3.Pro jobs mostly weddings and celebrations.Averag about 20 rolls a job.Have considered newer cameras BUT very worried about Battery usage general poor construction.As a watchmaker(Swiss Trained) I`ve seen where plastic and quartz timing have gone.Most new watches are not worth servicing....Only a few mechanical brands are worth it. I do not want to keep buying worse and worse products. I shall add a F2 or FM2 in good condition.My M3 is due for service.It is still a great quick camera.Last week required a big blow up of a photo.Used a 45 year old Rollei TLR and photo is sharper and better than any 35mm.It was heavily cropped as well.Slightly larger than 35mm negative size.

-- jason gold (jason1155234@webtv.net), August 21, 2000.

AI lenses are better made, but some AF lenses are unavailable as manual lenses (e.g. 20-35/2.8, 17-35/2.8).

Steve Smith's comments about the Nikon mount made me think. Steve, I think you're wrong. Sure, there's a little complexity with the Nikon mount but it really isn't all that bad. The mount is capable of delivering all these goods and the very fact that I can use a manual, mechanical FM2n with my AF lenses makes it worth all the sacrifices. I live in a cold, harsh climate and my FM2n gets used a lot.

The people that need the across-the-mount compatibility will buy bodies that deliver it. Nit-picking that the F80 won't meter with manual Nikkors is a bit unfair when you can't even mount an FD lens onto an EOS.

As for VR, sure, that's true, but those who care will buy the bodies that do VR. I know how to use a tripod and 1/15 with a slow zoom is not going to get me shots of moving animals, so I don't care if I have VR.

-- Jim MacKenzie (photojim@yahoo.com), August 22, 2000.