Hi folks,
I've been slowly but surely going through the archives and querying the
archive search engine but no luck.
I'm sure that the list has debated the issue of MF vs. AF lenses but I'm
specifically directing my question at those Nikon owners who used to own MF
lenses and have bought one or more of the new Nikons bodies which really
need the CPU in the lens to exploit all of the benefits of the camera.
I've owned my F3 for over a decade and it's almost a part of my right hand.
I've always stayed with fast manual focus prime lenses including the
24/2.0, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, and the great 105/1.8
Recently I had the chance to get into an F5 for a great price. I also
bought the 80-200/2.8 new, and an SB-28. All of the electronics are
intimidating to a dyed-in-the-wool F3 user, but I'm really enjoying the
challenge and the myriad of options.
MY QUESTION: (finally)
For those of you who've bought an N90s, an F5 or F100, have you migrated
completely to AF lenses? I cannot afford to own both AF versions of the MF
lenses that I already own and hate the idea of selling these amazing lenses
which have travelled with me to the far corners of globe.
I could see myself selling the 50/1.2 and buying the 50/1.4D. I could see
myself buying the 85/1.4D to fill that gap in my lens lineup. But selling
the 35/1.4 for the 35/2.0D just doesn't make sense to me initially.
Neither does selling the 24/2.0 for the 28/2.8D.
I would very much appreciate any thoughts about those people who enjoy
Nikon's fast prime lenses and how/if they went from MF to AF lenses and why
or why not.
Thanks!
Gen
