Hi, John!
Here's a question that has been bothering me for some
time concerning Nikon MF lenses vs Nikon AFD lenses
with the same focal length and aperature ranges. I'm
only referring to image quality here, not to convenience
or 'feel' or ruggedness or mechanical construction, etc.
Specifically, I have the Nikon MF 200mm f4 (the old
one with the chrome ring between the aperture and focus rings)
and the MF 80-200 f4.5 (fixed) zoom which I had (and have) with
my FM2n before I purchased the N70. With the N70 I
purchased the 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 AFD and the 70-300
f4-5.6 AFD (among others).
Noting that your comments about these two lenses seem
more pragmatic than the usual 'religiously' oriented posts
and, therefore, inspire more confidence, do you have an
opinion on how these MF lenses compare with the AFD lenses in
the same focal length range (aside from convenience and
flash fill advantages)?
More directly: if I'm shooting landscape with lots of time
to work, would you recommend using one of the MF lenses
rather than the AFD's for the same focal length and
aperture?
Aside from mechanical construction and 'feel' which most
prefer, it's hard to believe that the optical design,
glass and coatings have not been improved upon over more
than 20 years.
I'm sure your response will be of interest to many
on the digest.
thanks....patrick
