Patrick Warnshuis wrote:
> 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
Well, you don't make this easy, Patrick, but I will say that optically
both the older 200mm f4 and the 80-200mm f4.5 have probably been
surpassed by several modern alternatives. First, the 200 f4 old version
was replaced by the 200mm F4 compact version which is a very nice small
200 mm with a good reputation. I would consider one of these (later
versions) as a potential rival for any modern zoom in that range and it
is multicoated so landscape detail will not be obscured by flare. BTW
bright sky is the main culprit in degrading the shadow detail in
landscape foregrounds with regard to lens flare that robs contrast and
"clarity of color". In this focal length, I personally use a 180mm f2.8
EDIF AFN on both AF and MF Nikons. It's a bit more expensive but it's
worth it.
As for the zooms I would compare the 80-200mm against your new 70-300mm
and see which you liked better. I frequently use the older 75-300mm
f4.5/5.6 Nikkor for specialized purposes with professional results even
though I have fixed focal length lenses covering its range. Some people
really loved that 80-200 f 4.5 but I suspect many of them are sporting
some version of the f2.8 now.
Depending on physical condition you could probably sell both your 200mm
f4 and your 80-200 f4.5 for about $300-$325 total and put that towards
another more modern lens.
What's funny about Nikkors is that many of the older lenses aren't as
sharp, theoretically, and may have been superseded by modern "computer
designed" optical formulas but the old lenses have a certain "look" on
film that you don't see in the newer lenses. This is purely subjective.
I like the sound of my CD's played through vacuum tubes.
I would choose lenses that help you take the kinds of photos you want to
take and that allow you to express your personal or professional vision.
I have never had a client reject a shoot because I was using an old
lens. (I never let them see my 35 f1.4 up close 'cause they'd think I
was some kind of hobo.) I have many 35mm stock photos (chromes) and my
system intermingles the older shots with new work. I don't really notice
a major difference between shots taken with gear I owned 15-20 years ago
and stuff I own now. The Kodak and Fuji E-6 films are where you see the
improvement in color. Kodachrome still has better shadow detail. Pete
Turner took some stunning photographs with Nikons that are now seen as
antiques! Sometimes I just go with a lens I like on a subjective basis. The
really tough part of landscape photography is being there when the light is right!
Best Regards,
John Brink
Cheyenne Canyon, Colorado
