Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 new vs old?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by evokel, Sep 9, 2008.

  1. evokel

    evokel

    326
    Sep 6, 2008
    florida
  2. ERAUGrad04

    ERAUGrad04

    271
    Jan 15, 2008
    IL


    The older version in an AF-D lens. So it relies on the camera for autofocus drive. The newer, AF-S version that you posted above, has the Nikon Silent Wave Motor in it and does not need and AF drive body(so a D40,D60 will AF this lens). I am unsure of the tech spec differences, but I know a have seen some great pictures from both lenes.

    B&H photo is a very highly regarded site. I actually just placed an order with the yesterday. I would not hesitate using them.

    Morgan
     
  3. evokel

    evokel

    326
    Sep 6, 2008
    florida
    so which one would you perfer with a d80? since one has a AF and the d80 has a AF?
     
  4. ERAUGrad04

    ERAUGrad04

    271
    Jan 15, 2008
    IL
    I was seriously considering the AF-D version. It is cheaper and takes some amazing pictures. Only reason I did not pick one up is I got sidetracked with the Nikkor 17-55 2.8 and my budget became maxed out! :biggrin:
     
  5. Both versions are AF (autofocus). The old version is focused by a motor in your camera's body. The new version is focused by a motor built into it's own body, which is faster. The question is, would the older version be fast enough for your applications? If so, you can save a few hundred bucks buying a mint used copy of the older version.
     
  6. He does, but his conclusions have to be taken with a grain of salt.
     
  7. primoz

    primoz

    17
    Aug 25, 2008
    Willoughby, Oh
  8. I agree. But the information that he provides is often very helpful and amusing.
     
  9. Leif

    Leif

    Feb 12, 2006
    England
    Except that he misses out most of the key differences IMO.

    Firstly the older lens has a 7 blade diaphragm which gives very harsh and angular highlights. It also gives slight harsh bokeh in some conditions, depending on lighting, background and aperture. By all accounts the new one is better in this respect. If like me you do macro shots in forests, you will find the out of focus highlights of the old lens rather ugly.

    Secondly the new lens does not have an aperture ring, which means you cannot select the real aperture, only the effective one. The older lens has an aperture ring, so you can select the real aperture. For me this is a big advantage of the older lens. If you shoot bugs with a macro flash, you want to set the real aperture, so that you are in full control of the depth of field.

    Thirdly the new lens cannot be used with Nikon extension tubes, only third party ones, which in my experience are not up to Nikon quality.

    Fourthly - yes yet another shortcoming of the old lens not mentioned by Ken, presumably because he has limited use of the lens, and his reviews are largely comparisons of the specs - is that according to Nikon you cannot use the R1 macro flash with it. This is because the front of the lens moves during focussing, and mounting the R1 unit would put too much strain on the mechanics and auto-focus unit. In practice it does seem to manually focus without problems - anyway who on Earth uses AF for macro - but it is possible that the weight could cause wear/damage.

    Fifthly, as the new lens is IF, it does not suck in dust, dirt and moisture. The old one does. As far as I can tell the new lens is better sealed too. The old one is not well sealed.

    In addition the old lens can be used with a TC14A and gives usable results, but not brilliant. I cannot comment on the new one on a TC14E as I own neither item. Anyway, tele-converters are best avoided with most lenses with a few exceptions IMO.

    Oh, and his working distance argument is slightly misleading. The new lens needs a lens hood, which will further reduce clearance. The old lens does not need a lens hood in my experience as the front element is recessed.

    It is best to get information from people who use lenses, rather than Ken's rather superficial 'reviews'.
     
  10. lisa_h

    lisa_h

    346
    Sep 6, 2008
    New England
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 9, 2008
  11. Leif

    Leif

    Feb 12, 2006
    England
    Oh and BH Photovideo of NY is one of the best photo shops in America if not the world. Top notch.
     
  12. i have found when I do macro work i find myself using manual focus any way so the speed of AF is not used any way Just my 2cents
     
  13. lisa_h

    lisa_h

    346
    Sep 6, 2008
    New England
    When I do macro work of bugs--- I prefer to use AF b/c time is of the essence. You never know when they are going to fly, jump or slither away :)
     
  14. Lisa I usually do my roses I ahve 200+ rose bushes in my yard so i don't have too much time for the bugs . But i do spray for then to not eat my roses
     
  15. Leif

    Leif

    Feb 12, 2006
    England
    I would treat the roses to make them tastier and attract bigger and better bugs. :biggrin:
     
  16. Nikon 60mm f/2.8 new vs old?

    September 9, 2008

    There are two other important points that many of the posters missed about these two lenses.

    1. I may not have caught it but the older version has an aperture ring so it will work on older Nikon bodies, and the newer version may not.

    2. The older version has great performance (I purchased one about 3 months ago from B&H) and there was one other thing I liked about the older version. It was about $100 to $150 lower in cost then the new version. Ca Ching.

    Steve Zalewski
    Syracuse, NY
     
  17. lisa_h

    lisa_h

    346
    Sep 6, 2008
    New England
    I bet you do :)
    I have overcome my fear of bees this summer w/ this macro :wink:

    Haha. Me too.