Hi Zivko and fellow Nikon users,
>Why AI lenses are more expensive than E series? Is the optical quality
>of E series inferior or they are not built as well as AI (worse
>materials?)? Is it worth paying more for the latter?
Firstly, the difference between E series and other series Nikkor
lenses....a page from the Nikon Compendium:
"The E series was introduced together with the Nikon EM so that less
expensive lenses could be offered with this beginner's camera. Their
bayonet corresponds to the AI-S types except that the aperture prong for
older cameras is missing. The focusing ring and the helixes were made of
plastic. With the exception of the 35mm, 50mm and 100mm lenses, which only
had single coatings, all individual elements of the others were multi-coated".
The E series is said to be inferior in optical quality compared to the
other Nikkor lenses, except the 75-150/3.5 E. It is described in the same
books as "The image quality of this NIC-coated lens is so good that it would
have fitted perfectly into the Nikkor programme". Hint: This is a good lens
if you're on a budget (should be less than US$150, check out eBay.com).
The 70-210/4 E, however, was described as "must be regarded as inferior to
that of the 80-200/4 but only due to a slightly less contrasy redition".
As to your 2nd question of paying more for better build and optical
quality, I have had both the 70-210/4 E as well as the 80-200/4.5 AI before.
Both render sharp pictures up to 8"x10" with the AI lens giving better
colour rendition (contrasier). The cost difference between them (used) was
about 20%. So, if you're doing no larger than 8"x10" and in black and white
prints, the E series might be a viable option, given tight budgets. But if
you're doing colour portraits or landscapes or slides, go with the non E
series lens. The extra $$$ you fork out will be worth it, optically
speaking. The build quality of the non E series Nikkors are also slightly
better (more tolerant to knocks and such) than the E series.
Hope that helped.
Regards,
Deric Soh.
