35 vs 35 - Conclusion
I have spent the last month using Nikon's manual and auto-focusing mid-level 35mm lenses. They are moderately priced prime lenses (the autofocus lens is still available new, although it has recently been superseded by the new 35mm f/1.8 G lens at approximately twice the price.) Even though the performance of the f/2 twins is quite similar, the two lenses are completely different, in both their optical and physical construction. Here are diagrams of the lens construction from Leo Foo's mir website:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
The autofocus lens has a plastic body and many plastic parts inside. It is susceptible to the 'oil-on-the-blades' issue. My copy of the lens (bought new in 2003) succumbed to this malady several years ago, due to repeated exposure to Arizona heat, no doubt. The effect of oil leaking onto the diaphragm blades is that the response time of the aperture closing prior to exposure becomes very slow, resulting in exposure inconsistency. Ultimately the aperture would not change, making the lens almost useless. Repair consisted of buying a lens (through the Nikon Cafe Marketplace) and using the aperture assembly from that lens in my lens. All other parts of my lens are original.
I believe large front element of the AI-S lens is responsible for the increased flare of that lens. On the other hand, the lens is well constructed with a metal barrel and control rings. As an AIS lens, it has a 'nikkormat' prong, and a secondary aperture scale for cameras that show the aperture in the viewfinder, such as the F5. It is substantially heavier and larger than the autofocus lens because of these features. I obtained this lens used, attached to a Nikon D2x camera. It did not appear that it had ever been used hard, as it was immaculate when I got it.
I have used my 35mm autofocus lens very hard for several years. It was my go-to lens for low light work and street photography. Hundreds (if not thousands) of pictures were made through it. It has not had an easy life, as I do not 'baby' my lenses (neither do I mistreat them, but I will do what I need to do in order to get the picture!) As a result the plastic barrel of the AF lens had cracked due to being bumped and repeatedly put in and pulled out of a camera bag. Eventually (prior to last year's Octoberfest) I used methylene chloride to glue the barrel together so it would withstand that (and this) meme. Eventually those cracks grew and a chunk of the barrel fell off the lens. Here is the damage to the lens:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
The damage is minor, and repairable (with a part from the second copy I bought.) I intend on continuing to use the lens as-is, until it becomes a problem. Both lenses have their strengths, and their weaknesses. Here is my tabulation:
Test 1, Acuity: I believe the autofocus lens is somewhat sharper in the center, but the AI lens has better consistency across the field. None-the-less, the lenses are so similar, there is scant reason to pick one above the other based on acuity alone. This test is a DRAW.
Test 2, Chromatic Aberration: Here there are some, if minor differences. The chroma is more pronounced, and more saturated in the manual lens. It is not substantially less in the autofocus lens, but it is noticeably so. This test goes to the AF lens by a nose.
Test 3, Distortion: These lenses are nearly identical in their slight barrel distortion. The autofocus is slightly longer in focal length, thus magnifying it's distortion slightly. Because of this, the (slightly wider) manual lens takes this test by the smallest possible margin.
Test 4, Flare: Here there is a clear difference between the lenses. The autofocus lens' flare is general and soft - the contrast of the image is reduced by a strong backlight, but artifacts are minimized. The manual lens had a hard, rainbow colored, optically warped, ghost of bright objects. While this can be used creatively, it cannot be easily eliminated. I have a lens hood permanently attached to my AI-S lens, and rarely use filters as they would only aggravate the flare. The AF lens owns this test, with the creative use caveat.
Test 5, Construction: The AF lens is plastic and has suffered from hard use. The AI lens has seen less use, but is made of metal, and less likely to sustain damage with normal usage. The metal lens is heavier, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The AF lens fits nicely on lighter cameras, such as my N80 film camera. The AI lens came with a large camera (the D2x) and it balances well on that camera. It also feels good on my D700. Looking through the lenses, there is more intimacy with the AI lens, probably due to the tactile feedback of manually focusing it. The AI-S takes the construction test.
Overall, the lenses are evenly matched. I cannot say one is "better" than the other. They are, however different. The main difference is designed in - the AF lens autofocuses. At my age this is becoming important. However, I use hyperfocal apertures and often shoot without looking through the lens. With an AF lens this can lead to the wrong part of the image being in sharp focus, so a manual focus lens can be be an advantage. In regular (non-meme) use I put these lenses on different cameras for different uses.
I think of the AF lens as a DX format normal lens, so it lives on my D2x camera. The damaged barrel will also have less effect on the DX camera, as will the slightly softer corners at large apertures. The AF lens also focuses about 25% closer than the AI lens. This is good, since it is problematic to put my +4 close-up filter onto the damaged threads. Here is the 35mm f/2 AF D lens in that environment:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
The manual focus lens is a classical 35mm lens, which I use for street shooting and environmental portraiture. It is often found attached to my Nikon FG film camera (it does not meter on my N80), or now, after my experience in this meme, on my D700. I absolutely love how the lens experience feels more intimate than does the autofocus lens. I am sure this is all psychological, but what is photography, if not applied psychology? Plus it looks good on an older camera, as seen here, attached to my FG:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Tomorrow, I will be driving (in my new Soul!) to Northern Arizona to pick up a standard red poodle puppy. I'll be taking the D700 with the 35mm f/2 AI-S lens attached. If anything comes out good, I'll post the results in another thread - watch for it. This lens/camera combo might just be my new 'everyday carry' for the summer!
I will leave you with a final challenge photo. Here is a strongly back-lighted Olivia. Can you guess the lens?
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
No flare and little visible astigmatism, I take the AF again on this one, Chris.
Fantastic finishing, illustrated write-up to the meme, Chris. And to those of us who have (AI) or had (AF) these lenses, a really, really interesting write-up.
I trust you'll join in on the post-mortem and share your thoughts....I would highly value them, as I am shure would others.
