Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 20, 2003, 8:58 AM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 25
Default very basic lens question

Now your really going to think I'm a dumb blonde but I have to ask this basic question. When I purchased my Nikon D100 I also purchased a Nikkor 24-85 3.5-4.5 G afs, and a nikkor 50mm1:1.4D lens. With all things being equal, when would I use the 50mm lens. The zoom covers that range and with over 300 shots taken, seems to give a clearer shot so far. I bought the two lens after reading alot of reviews but you can tell by this question that I'm new at SRL cameras. And heres one more question. Is there a huge difference between the 80-200 AF zoom and the 80-200 AFS zoom? I know the AFS costs around $700 more.
Thanks again and see ya on the mountain.
Hiking Girl
hiking girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 20, 2003, 10:30 AM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803

I answered it in the Nikon SLR forum post you made.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2003, 10:56 AM   #3
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 35

Well, the 50mm should produce a sharper image than the 24-85mm at 50mm. The trade off is versatility. The zoom lens is a wonderful thing for walking around shots. This particular model, although plasticky and light, produces excellent shots. Where you often lose on zooms is 1) speed (your 50mm is a 1.4 vs. 3.5) and 2) tradeoff at the extremes, either lack of sharpness, barrel distortion at the wide end or pin cushion distortion at the long end.

The biggest shortcoming you may find with the zoom vs. your prime will be fast action or low light. A bright lens like a 1.4 allows faster shutter speeds.
scorpio_fish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 2, 2003, 12:44 PM   #4
Senior Member
marokero's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769

Since the other questions have been covered, I'll answer the one about the differences between the 80-200 AF-S and non-AF-S. I use the non-AF-S version at work, and it's okay. But the AF speed is much slower than the AF-S version. I don't have the AF-S version, but do have another AF-S, the 28-70, and I hear the 80-200 AF-S is even faster to AF than my 28-70 AF-S. And image quality wise, the images from the non-AF-S is a bit softer than the ones from my 28-70. I realize I'm comparing two different range zooms, but the 80-200 AF-S offers similarly sharp (if not slightly sharper) than my lens. If you want to get a used, though almost new condition 80-200 AF-S for a bit more than the price of a new non AF-S 80-200, B&H has one in their used equipment dept. If you hurry you may be able to get it I would buy it for myself, if only I had enough funds... good luck!
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2003, 3:38 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 610

I think Nikon really overprices the AF-S function of the lens compare to Canon. You can see most of Canon lenses are equipped with the USM (same as AF-S, well you may say that, but I think Canon new USM version is probably better than Nikon AF-S), but their prices are much more reasonable. The original Nikon AF 80-200mm F/2.8 is an exellent len, built like a tank, performance wide is up to any expectation, the AF-S version costs almost twice of the non AF-S version (but not perform any better except AF function), just for the silentwave AF technology. Of course it will focus faster, but I do not think Nikon really justfy that much different in term of cost and price. On the other hand, I think if you would want to pay that much of different to get the more expensive version, i would rather spend the money to get the new AF-S VR 70-200 F/2.8.
tuanokc@hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2003, 11:51 PM   #6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 579
Default Re: very basic lens question

Originally Posted by hiking girl
And heres one more question. Is there a huge difference between the 80-200 AF zoom and the 80-200 AFS zoom? I know the AFS costs around $700 more.
I happened to have both and used them for some time. The AFS version has a poorly designed tripod mount as almost everyboy knows, and is a little sharper than the non-AFS version. But, Kirk has a replacement. See http://www.kirkphoto.com/Welcome.html Eventually, I dumped the AFS version, because I made a decision to go with fixed focal length lenses. But, the AF version still perform respectifully. In my opinion, the AF version is good enough unless you do care about focusing speed and extra sharpness. The new AFS 70-200VR is even more expensive. Because many are dumping their AFS 80-200 in order to buy the new AFS 70-200, there are some AFS 80-200 on eBay with reasonable prices.

The following site has some very interesting and informative review:

Hope this helps.

Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500 user guide
shene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2006, 10:39 PM   #7
Junior Member
magsigns's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9

it sounds like u have a lot of $ to burn. your also not a pro nor do u make a living with your camera equipment. sell both lenses and get the 18 - 200 nikon lense $750 + then take a few photo classes
magsigns is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:03 PM.