Ok, I am curious regarding the statements made about how older lenses are better than the modern lenses. Are they better? I'm asking not in a sarcastic way, I'm asking for some input as to why some people believe that older, prior to AF, lenses are better than the modern lenses used today. I really have no opinion on this subject.
Is there an implication that older is better due to the lens construction? I do know that older lenses tend to be heavier, partly due to construction of the barrel and sometimes because of the optical glass. Are the older lenses better because they are less expensive than the newer lenses, since they can be readily found in camera shops and on the Internet?
I have used older lenses and I was satisfied with them; however, I am also very satisfied with my newer AF lenses. I will say that I primarily use the pro rated lenses, made with steel or aluminum and the top quality optical glass; therefore, I really do not have much experience with the non-pro lenses made out of plastic.
I do believe, from what I have read and from what I know, there have been great advancements made in optical glass in the last 10-15 years. Some of these advancements such as thinner optical glass, molded and hybrid aspherical lenses, etc. are used to create better optics for lenses, and to reduce the overall weight of lenses. Is it only the pro lenses that are receiving this advancement in optical glass? Do other; non-pro lenses also reap the benefits of this research and development in the refining of optical glass? Possibly they do, but only after years of the glass being made available on pro-lenses.
Again, I am posting out of curiosity, and to start a friendly and interesting discussion on the merits of older lenses versus the newer lenses produced in this day-and-age.
Doug

"Take only photographs, leave only footprints"

LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-00 AT 06:11 AM (GMT)

Nice, thought provoking questions indeed.
Let us give more people a change to give their opinions before I attempt one (or several), coming from before the APO era
JRP
My profile
Previous photography stuff, before Nikonians and Bo Stahlbrandt:
A Brief Love Story

Have a great time
JRP (Founder & Administrator. Nikonian at the north-eastern Mexican desert) Gallery, Brief Love Story, The Team
Join the Silver, Gold and Platinum members that help this happen; upgrade. Join your personal web site to the Nikonians WebRing
Make sure you check our workshops at The Nikonians Academy

By old lenses, are you talking non-coated?

I have ONE non-coated pentax lens with an adaptor to use it on my Spotmatic. The only reason why I'd use it is to take advantage of chromatic abberation - for portraiture.

Otherwise, I think I've taken it out twice in 15 years.

Otherwise, speaking as a devils advocate, has there really been that much of a change since the early days of multi-coating and todays lenses?

Cheeri'o...
Frankie...

Frankie,
If you want to talk about pre-coated lenses, that is one option. I was thinking more like pre-high-tech aspherical lenses, HLD and SD glass, internal focus versus non-IF focus. However, pre-coating is also a good point too.
Strange there have not been that many discussions on this subject.
Doug

"Take only photographs, leave only footprints"

LAST EDITED ON Jul-23-00 AT 07:13 PM (GMT)

Dear DD:
I have found that old lenses demand more from me.
I must compose right, get to the right distance not just zoom in or out, for example. Think again in apperture an/or speed terms, at times neverminding the exposure. Using or avoiding flare, and so on.
Are they better?. Yes, IMHO anyway, because they force me to come out from lazyness and casual snapshooting. Amazingly, the trash can ends up emptier when I take out my FE2 and my old AIS lenses. Somehow I get more into an experimentation mood with my old gear than with my new one and it is refreshing.
Edward Steichen's words still bother me a lot:
"No photographer is as good as the simplest camera."
I hope I am not babbling off-track your intended subject.
Have a great time
JRP
My profile
Previous photography stuff, before Nikonians and Bo Stahlbrandt:
A Brief Love Story

Have a great time
JRP (Founder & Administrator. Nikonian at the north-eastern Mexican desert) Gallery, Brief Love Story, The Team
Join the Silver, Gold and Platinum members that help this happen; upgrade. Join your personal web site to the Nikonians WebRing
Make sure you check our workshops at The Nikonians Academy

>If you want to talk about
>pre-coated lenses, that is one
>option. I was thinking more

Well, I have 3 lenses that predate coating technology. They're old Asahi (pre-pentax screw mount) lenses. They operated on a 35 mm camera with a waist-level finder and a different, oddsized threading.

They're terrible lenses. One of them cannot be used for colour photography. It'll put a VERY VISIBLE Cyan-Magenta (or other combo-depending on the light) fringe around nearly everything. Works great as a soft black and white lens though - Not that I have a camera any more that'll connect to it...


>like pre-high-tech aspherical lenses, HLD
>and SD glass, internal focus
>versus non-IF focus. However, pre-coating
>is also a good point
>too.

You know, I'm not terribly convinced that these new types of lenses are really phenomenally better. I think they've made lens-making cheaper (in the case of Asph lenses) and HLD and SD serve primarily to reduce the size of elements within the lens.


All of my lenses, for the time being are non-IF lenses. They certainly rotate and extend in their usual Freudian way and it's not really a bother for me.

But it miffs me slightly, the idea of slapping on that nifty Cokin filter kit and having the resin "cards" catapulting towards a friend standing beside me as the f100 desides to make a "quick change"


Cheeri'o...
Frankie...

Doug,
I have used every generation of Nikkor since the origional non-AI lenses and while I admit that I have been swayed by the praises sung by those who I have respected in the areas of photography that I am interested in... journalism, landscape and portraiture, I have come to rely on my experiences, both positive as well as the negative, to conclude that I can do very well in my chosen endevers by sticking to very late AI and all AIS lenses. If you look at my user profile, the lenses that are in the manual focus section have been repurchased after selling off mostly the same lenses to make the big jump into auto focus... In hindsight, the dumbest thing I've ever done.

I bought into the "future is here" philosophy while living in Japan. I never felt restricted by my manual cameras and questioned the "need" for auto focus, but my Japanese friends were diving in, and I went too. I unloaded most of my great lenses and bought the same focal lengths as I tended to use in auto focus... 35, 50, 85 as well as some zooms. I will admit that optically, the lenses were great. The 35mm f2.0 was better in everyway than my MF version. I was happy for about two years. The time it took for these lenses to start failing on me. First the 50mm f1.4 started to have intermitten performance wide open. I could shake it and feel elements moving within the tube. Then there was the 8 rolls of film ruined by the 35mm lens not closing down during exposure. I was shooting "blind candids" from the hip with the lens stopped down to f8, for both the depth of field as well as the exposure, (on an FM2). After 8 rolls I was going to shoot a well composed shoot, I hit the preview lever and the finder didn't get dark. I was in shock, and thought of the 200 plus shots. The returned film confirmed the worst... all over exposed, all narrowly focused at the widest stop. I thought I just had bad luck, but while surfing the web, there was a site that had nothing but horror stories like this... the 35mm was one that was repeatedly mentioned for this problem... excessive lube in the blades.

Going through my mind, I never lost a shot because of mechanical problems with my manual focus cameras and lenses. I can remember dropping lenses to concrete, and after restarting my heart, shooting away without a problem. I always used the metal Nikon hoods and they were dinged in and scratched badly. The hood shouldn't be stronger than the lens it is attached to, and that was the impression I had with the plastic AF lenses.

I looked trough my thousands of slides and got sentimental when I realized that I didn't have those lenses anymore. I finally bit the financial bullet and replicated about 75% of my previous MF lenses... Including upgrades to ones I never felt able to justify like the 35mm f1.4... I'm in heaven now. I also started to question my techniques and find myself at this point in my life in a process of reducing, minimizing and steamlineing. I carry, for my personal work, two lenses and find that rather than limiting it is liberating... especially after 5 or 6 hours. Of course, needing to meet the requirments of the client, I have all of the lenses needed for anything, but for me, two lenses can do it all.

Sorry for the ramble... I didn't just want to say that, "yes, better..." Based on MY experience, they are better for me. You can spend over a thousand dollars on a new AF 80-200 f2.8, or get a 24mm 2.8, 35mm f2.0 and 105mm f2.5, and have change left over. Anyone of those lenses will perform on a level that exceeds the user's ability to get the most out of them. That is one of the little secrets of cameras of any generation... Tripod, optimum aperture, careful focus, perfect exposure, smooth shutter release, and a guy with a $100 Pentax can kill the guy with a Leica using sloppy technique.

My bottom line is that I buy used equipment, spend the difference on film, travel, and experience. Now I never use the word obsolete. The availability of cameras and lenses on the used market, that just 5 years ago would have made "pro's" drool just makes me happy as can be. Better?, worse? Don't know, but I won't stop searching in the used section at the camera store.

Al

Al,

Well said! Leaving aside the optical quality of the glass elements, what does an older generation AI lens have inside? One or two threaded metal tubes and a diaphragm with its actuating mechanism. A jeweler's cross head screwdriver gets you inside if something gets stuck.

If you took an AF lens apart, however, you'd have enough motors, servos, wiring and electronics inside to build a CD player with enough parts left offer for three kids to do their junior science projects! Well, maybe two kids...? Anyway, the inside of an AF lens is really no place to be practicing amateur camera mechanics.

A colleague of mine has an F2 and a 1973 pre-AI 50mm f-1.4 lens. Butter-smooth focusing, and the f-stops snap in like new. I wonder how many of today's AF lenses will still be in business in 2027?

Mike

Doug,
If you are interested in a long read, here is a website that is dedicated to the comparison between AF and MF lenses and general camera systems. The author has an agenda, and I don't just blindly accept everything he says, but he makes some good points, references any points that use quantifiable data and is nothing if not thourough.

Also of interest is at the end of his presentation, there is a forum of user's experiences from many sources... Including Nikon Digest, that corroborates many of the points made by the author.

Locate the site at: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/af.html

Again, this is another source of information towards you query and might give you some perspectives not otherwise available.

Al

Al,
Thanks for the info. I started this discussion just to see what everyone will say regarding the differences between old and newer lenses.
It is evident that the mechanics of the older lenses are simpler and easier to work on if required. Of course this is true of almost everything as time advances with new technology. Look at the simple automobile. Years ago anyone could work on the engine, set the timing, change the plugs, etc. Now, about all a person can do is change the plugs and wires (if there are any wires), it's not the simple automobile anymore.
So it would only seem normal that with the invention of AF lenses, they would become more difficult to work on.
As for the glass, that is one thing not too many have touched on. As I said earlier, I really have no opinion on this, I just posted it to see what type of discussion we could get out of the topic.
If someone asked me, I would agree that the mechanics of older lenses are simpler to work on; however, the advancements in the actual optical quality of the glass elements has improved drastically in the last 10-15 years. Also, the construction of older lenses was better than the non-pro lenses of today; but are were they any better than the expensive pro lenses manufactured today?
Doug

"Take only photographs, leave only footprints"

Doug,
I think that the thing that bugs me the most is the fact that in the "old" days, you could be certain that if you bought any lens in the Nikon line up that was annotated "Nikkor", you could be sure you owned on of the best lenses in that focal length at that speed that you could buy. For example, Nikon made three different 35mm lenses f1.4, f2.0 and f2.8. The f1.4 version is considered a classic... still sought today. But you could be confident that the f2.8 model would deliver within its functional range, the best optical performance possible... And it does. The moderate f stop negates the need for CRC and if speed is not required, the lens is very good. Basically, over the history of the line, only a very few lenses were below average... Nikon apologized for the 43-86 zoom (and it wasn't that bad)... and there was a pride in the ownership of the best equipment you could buy.

In the '80's when Nikon decided to seek actively the consumer market... they so designated the lower end lenses with the moniker "series E"... and made no bones about the reduced level of construction. The choice was clear... a Nikkor was a Nikkor, and we paid for them (justifiably so).

You are correct in that with today's technology... lenses can and should be better than ever. I stated that my AF 35mm lens was far superior to my MF version... But a lens should last far longer than 2 years. My budget will not allow me to buy on a reoccurring basis optically great lenses that have a built in expiration date due to short cuts in the mechanical process. Yes, now you can buy the most expensive Nikkors... usually the f2.8 zooms, and they should be fine.... (I don't know for sure, don't own any), but Nikon's history was made from the '60's, '70's, and '80's. Thousands of "war stories" of the legendary toughness of Nikons during wars, riots, in space and harsh environments gave the company it earned reputation. Any "bread and butter" Nikkor was a tool that wouldn't let you down.... the 150 dollar f2.8 or the 700 dollar f1.4... equally strong, equally sharp.

When I hold the current versions of the common range of fixed focus lenses, (my favorites), I some how can't ignore the fact that they don't feel as sound as even the series E lenses that I had in the past.... and these new lenses are called Nikkors. Optics are important, but the sharpest lens that can't hold up to the riggers placed on it will soon lose the confidence of the user who has experienced the other side of the coin... very good lenses that you just can't wear out. I guess that I'd feel better if Nikon would just go ahead and categorize the lenses into clearly delineated groups, as in the old series E days... But I fear the NIKKOR section would get pretty small.

Al

Al,
I couldn't agree more. It is a shame that they don't rename their consumer line "E" or something else, while keeping Nikkor on their Pro Series lenses.
I've been slowly conveting to Tokina. In my opinion the Tokina AT-X pro lenses have the same quality as the Nikkor pro lenses, at less price.
I guess I've become used to Nikon's pro series lenses, not having used any of the non-pro lenses. However, looking them over in some of the local photo shops I can see why they won't last long. Using a plastic mount verus brass or nickel, can't make for a lasting mount. That and the plastic construction versus aluminum????
However, I have some friends who use Tamrons and Sigmas on their Nikons and the photos are good, but they won't last any longer than the plastic Nikons.
Guess the aluminum pro Nikons and the pro Tokinas hopefully will last a while longer.
Have a good day,
Doug

"Take only photographs, leave only footprints"

Doug,
I bought a Tokina ATX 90mm f2.5 macro lens in 1986. It was as good as any Nikkor lens in everyway... solid, sharp and precise.

Traveled all over the Philippines using it as a portrait lens and I still take out the slides and enjoy the quality.

The little things made me sure that the company was not just using the ATX designation loosely... Beautiful leather case for the macro converter and lens that snapped together forming a perfect single unit. An instruction manual that looked as if English speaking people may have been involved in the writing (Ha, ha).

Back then the word was that Nikon technicians were deeply involved in Tokina... And it showed.

Al

One thing this discussion is revolving around is the build quality of the lenses.

Everyone here is speaking of how smoothly the lens operates, it's focus, apr dial and so on.

If one was to take a manual, well dampened lens, retrofit it with cams and guides to AF via the cameras coupling, I guarantee you'd barely get through a roll of film on one set of batteries.

The new lenses are built to be AF'ed. Hence, their focus travel range is shortened on the cams for faster movement between the near and far extremes of the lens. Furthermore the lenses are made lighter, with less resistance in the mechanism to permit low voltage motors to actuate the lens' mechanics.

So, if company X was able to create a lens with fabulous glass, make it lighter and move very fast, wouldn't you consider that a technical feat worthy of eclipsing this whole "new vs. old" argument which is entirely based on "relative build quality"?

That's why I mentioned coated vs. uncoated lenses...


Cheeri'o...
Frankie...

Another great reason for Tokina lenses. In manual they have a dampened feeling similar to the old fashioned manual focus lenses.
DD

"Take only photographs, leave only footprints"

Al,
Your mention of "war stories" of Nikon toughness reminded me of a story I read many years ago about a Western photojournalist who snuck a couple of Nikons into the Soviet Union during the height of the cold war--submerged in barrel full of water. After disassembling and drying the cameras and lenses out, they worked just fine. I'd like to see someone try that with a modern camera and AF lens.

Kerry

Kerry

I do own only AI-s lenses, and I consider them as the "old" Nikkors, related to the new AF ones.
As for optical quality, I must say that sharpness of my slides is limited by characteristics of the film (and I mostly use Kodachrome) or mistakes of mine, rather than lens quality. So, even if the top AF lenses are any better (and I am not quite sure about this) the extra quality would be useless to my purposes.
As for construction... just hold in your hands a middle class AI-s lens (actually there are no such lenses, as they ALL are pro level lenses) and an AF counterpart. If you do not understand, turn the focus rings. If you still don't understand what I say, either you are kidding or you will not understand it anyhow, so I stop it here.
There is an interesting site (www.foto.no/nikon/) where I read a few nice news about even the top notch AF lenses needing accurate selection in order to avoid not perfectly centered samples, that in the opinion of the author are outnumbering the good ones. The author is a pro and a dedicated Nikon user and is having his AI lenses fitted with CPU and contacts in order to dialog with the newest cameras (!!!). Maybe this means something.

Good bye!

Geo

Here is me again, replicating to my own previous posting in order to correct an incomplete statement that risks to turn into real bullshit otherwise. Sorry for the mishap...

>As for optical quality, I must
>say that sharpness of my
>slides is USUALLY limited by characteristics
>of the film (and I
>mostly use Kodachrome FOR THIS VERY REASON, SINCE IT IS ONE OF THE FEW FILM THAT CAN DO BETTER THAN MY LENSES) or mistakes
>of mine, rather than lens
>quality.

It remains the fact that any 200 ISO colour or slide film will show graininess that will blur the tiniest particulars registered by the lens.

Geo

Regarding foto.no(rway)

Bjørn (aka "nfoto") is a member of this site. And yes, he's a heck of a photographer.

Bo (Nikonian in the Black Forest/Germany)
My profile and My gallery

See the latest, hottest posts
Bo Stahlbrandt. Founder and Administrator located in Bratislava/Slovakia and in the Black Forest/Germany.
Find out more about The Nikonians Team

Many of us switched from MF to AF because our old eyes couldn't focus as well (and not as fast)as they had prviously . I switched from LeicaSLR MF to NikonAF, having in the remote past used Nikon MF (l961-l980), and then for a short while(l997-98)the F3 and lenses. Recent MF lenses FEEL better, can fit the new bodies (F5,F100)but can't produce in my hands (and with my eyes)the AF results. My biggest AFlens complaint: the lens bodies (exterior shell, many interior component parts and lens element holders, focussing rings)are assembled with cheaper components that will not last with reasonably heavy but careful usage. The low voltage motors, cams, contacts, etc. could work just as well with better quality materials that might add only about 5%(according to my friends in nearby Silicon Valley, California) to assembly costs, but Nikon seems to be on a cost cutting mania which over time would, IMHO , result in less product confidence. The remedy is easy: produce two lines again, as in prior times with the less costly E-series, and a "pro line".I have spoken with NikonUSA on this subject and was told that consumers won't pay the slightly higher price justified by better quality and longevity. The fact is that higher priced IS Canon lenses fly off the shelves , because people perceive that they have an advantage(Image stabilization): higher price is not a deterrant if value is percieved. Stanley

Stan