# Nikon Nikkor 105mm 2.8 vs Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm 2.8D



## jands (Apr 19, 2011)

Seeing that the newest version of this lens is above my price range, I thought about buying used.  I'm having a hard time deciding between the old 2.8D or the even older 2.8 (manual).  So far I've found the 2.8D between 400 and 600 bucks, but the manual between 200 and 350.  

I'm tempted to go manual, because I like the idea of being forced to work that way.  Although, I haven't tried that much on the gear I already own.  What's important to me, though, is the sharpness.  Is the 2.8D sharper then the manual and therefore, coupled with the AF option, would be worth the extra money?   I do understand that because I would be using manual focus on the older lens, it might not appear as sharp as the autofocus lens, until I figure out what I'm doing.

Any thoughts on your experiences is appreciated.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 19, 2011)

My experience is "liking to be forced to work with lesser tools" is usually an excuse when one cannot afford the better ones. That said, you said you are budget conscious, so that makes perfect sense, but rather than make an excuse ... embrace it. The reality is that working with a better tool is ALWAYS a better choice if you can afford it, but there's nothing wrong with putting in a bit more elbow grease when you can't.

Would you be happy to dig a trench with a spoon?  Of course not.  If it was your only choice, however, you would make do.

I'm sure you'd be very happy with either lens, but if you can afford the AF then get the AF. It will give you more capability.

Beyond that, read the lens reviews for each, be sure to be mindful of potential quality issues with a used lens, and know what you're getting into before you buy.


----------



## shufti (Apr 19, 2011)

Not owning these lenses or knowing how they perform, whether the manual is sharper than the AF is also a question of how keen your eyesight is and how well you use it.


----------



## kundalini (Apr 19, 2011)

shufti said:


> .... a question of how keen your eyesight is and how well you use it.


Says the guy that squints.         Sorry, couldn't help myself.


For macro work, I manual focus.  However, I have the G mount and use the lens for more than macro.  My eyesight has gone south so AF is important to me for general use.  I would hazard a guess that the older models are designed for MF and thus have a better handleing in that regard, but it's only a guess.  photozone.de, fred miranda are a couple of good resources for lens reviews.


----------



## shufti (Apr 19, 2011)

That's my mongolian droopy eye-lid DNA


----------



## shufti (Apr 19, 2011)

Here you go.. mark 1 eyeball


----------



## baturn (Apr 19, 2011)

AF-S Micro NIKKOR 85mm 1:3.5G ED


----------



## Derrel (Apr 19, 2011)

Read Bjorn's review here: Special Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount

Take note, that the 105/2.8 AF-D micro loses a LOT of focal length at closest distance, being only 60mm in focal length at MFD, whereas the older 105/2.8 Ai-S loses less focal length, and is 88mm in EFL at MFD.


----------



## digitalescape (Apr 19, 2011)

I own the Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm 2.8D, and to me the auto focus is about useless for macros.  However it helps for head shots.


----------



## jands (Apr 19, 2011)

Hmmm.  All very good points.  I should have mentioned that I plan to use it mostly for portrait work.  I'm not sure how much that changes things.

Derrel, after reading the reviews you posted, I almost feel like I shouldn't even buy this lens!

Thanks for everyone's input.  I'll give it some thought and see what I decide.  If anything, I can always re-sell it, I guess.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 19, 2011)

Well, if you want a lens for portrait work, the choice is clear--you want the 105mm f/2.5 Ai or Ai-S, and NOT one of the Micro-Nikkors!!!! The 105/2.5 is "the lens" that elevated Nikon to fame!


----------



## baturn (Apr 19, 2011)

Don't see the lens I referred to listed. Forgot to mention it's VR.


----------



## jands (Apr 19, 2011)

I guess I liked the idea that I could do both.  But maybe I'm thinking about wrong.  Your suggestion is definitely cheaper.


----------



## jands (Apr 19, 2011)

Derrel, should I be too concerned with AI vs AI-S?  Research is telling me that there really is not a difference (especially on my camera), but that the AI feels more durable.  Any insight?


----------



## j-dogg (Apr 19, 2011)

manaheim said:


> My experience is "liking to be forced to work with lesser tools" is usually an excuse when one cannot afford the better ones. That said, you said you are budget conscious, so that makes perfect sense, but rather than make an excuse ... embrace it. The reality is that working with a better tool is ALWAYS a better choice if you can afford it, but there's nothing wrong with putting in a bit more elbow grease when you can't.
> 
> Would you be happy to dig a trench with a spoon?  Of course not.  If it was your only choice, however, you would make do.
> when it gets in and you can compare them with the 2.8
> ...




I have a Canon EF system with L lenses and an adapter to use my old Nikkor pre-AI glass. I just got a 105 f2.5 pre-AI from like the 60's, I'll post up some results here

What separates pre-AI, from AI and AI-S is a couple small things, and they all have to do with mounting. 

Pre-AI lens have no ring on the mount to tell the camera it's max aperture, it uses a bayonet (most Nikon lenses up into the 80's have this bayonet)

AI has the bayonet AND a ring on the bottom of the lens to be used with AI cameras like Nikon FG and Nikon F3, anything after 1977. AI stands for Automatic Indexing.

AI-S does away with the bayonet mount for the pre-AI bodies like the Nikon F and the Nikkormat (The Nikkormat FT3 is an AI body) I think there are a couple other small differences but those are the big ones, I'm a pre-AI Nikon guy and a Canon EF guy, so Derrel or any of the other Nikon buds here will correct me if I'm wrong.

There is a website that tells you which digital bodies take which old manual lenses and I can't remember it but it's been posted here before.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 19, 2011)

jands said:


> Derrel, should I be too concerned with AI vs AI-S?  Research is telling me that there really is not a difference (especially on my camera), but that the AI feels more durable.  Any insight?



The Ai series lenses have a somewhat different "feel" to them than the Ai-S series. The Ai lenses have stiffer focusing ring travel, typically slower (more degrees of turn) focusing travel, and in the 105/2.5's case, the AI model has no built-in lens shade. The exterior mechanics (barrel and focusing rings) of the Ai series is subtly different.

The 105/2.5 Ai-S has a shorter focusing throw, different cosmetics externally, a built-in sliding lens hood, an a feather-touch focusing movement; the Ai's focusing action is much stiffer. The AiS lenses all have a second, smaller f/stop scale, useful for cameras that have ADR (aperture direct readout) in their viewfinders.

One difference is the way the lens diaphragms actuate: the Ai-S models have a linear diaphragm action, the Ai ones do not. As far as feeling more durable--the stiffer focusing mechanisms that the Ai series had does make them feel, well, in a way, more "durable" to some people.

BOTH Ai and Ai-S lenses came with the meter coupling prong AKA "Buckhorns".


----------



## j-dogg (Apr 19, 2011)

How come my Series E 50mm AI-s doesn't have the meter coupling prong? Was that a Series E only thing?

**** you could learn something new everyday on here


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 19, 2011)

The ais/manual focus version is actually superior IMO. Provided you have a d200/300/700/7000/3 which fully support it.

It's just as good optically, built better, and has a superior feel when manually focusing--which is more important then when doing macro work.


----------



## jands (Apr 20, 2011)

I appreciate everyone's suggestions and info.  I scored an Ai on Adorama for less than 150 bucks.  Quality was "Very Good", so we'll see if it was a good deal or not.  I know that's a little bit different direction then the thread started out to be, but I sure did learn a lot.  

I'm anxious to get out and have some fun with it.  I might like it... or I might turn around and say "screw this manual focus nonsense!".  I guess I better start practicing on my other lenses until it gets here!

Hmmm... a challenge.  No AF until the 105 gets here.  Interesting...


----------



## manaheim (Apr 20, 2011)

j-dogg said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > My experience is "liking to be forced to work with lesser tools" is usually an excuse when one cannot afford the better ones. That said, you said you are budget conscious, so that makes perfect sense, but rather than make an excuse ... embrace it. The reality is that working with a better tool is ALWAYS a better choice if you can afford it, but there's nothing wrong with putting in a bit more elbow grease when you can't.
> ...



Er, ok but what does that have to do with my post?


----------



## Derrel (Apr 20, 2011)

j-dogg said:


> How come my Series E 50mm AI-s doesn't have the meter coupling prong? Was that a Series E only thing?
> 
> **** you could learn something new everyday on here


 

YES, that's right--eliminating the meter coupling prong was done on each Series E model. And all the Series E designs have the Speed notch machined into the rear of the mount, which is the "S" in Ai-S. The "NIKKOR" line of Ai and Ai-S lenses had the meter-coupling prong on them,so that they would connect to the light meters in older Nikkormat and Nikon bodies.


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 21, 2011)

jands said:


> I appreciate everyone's suggestions and info.  I scored an Ai on Adorama for less than 150 bucks.  Quality was "Very Good", so we'll see if it was a good deal or not.  I know that's a little bit different direction then the thread started out to be, but I sure did learn a lot.
> 
> I'm anxious to get out and have some fun with it.  I might like it... or I might turn around and say "screw this manual focus nonsense!".  I guess I better start practicing on my other lenses until it gets here!
> 
> Hmmm... a challenge.  No AF until the 105 gets here.  Interesting...


 
That price seems too low for adorama, are you sure it's the f2.8 micro ai and not a f2.5 ai.  The later is a good lens but not a macro lens.

They have a f4 micro 105mm for about what u paid, it doesn't make sense that the 2.8 version would be the same price


----------



## EJA64 (Oct 12, 2018)

From all that I have read / heard, the old AF-D version of the 105mm f/2.8 is a bit sharper than the older AI-S version, and as sharp as the newer AF-S version.  The D version is also said to have less Distortion, and Chromatic Aberration, than either the AI-S, or AF-S, versions. Even if not entirely true, it would seem that the differences are so slight as to not make one worth hundreds of dollars more than the others. When I shoot either macros, or portraits, I use a tripod, so VR is not needed. As such, the newer AF-S version is not worth the extra money to me. With the AF-D lens, you can shoot in Auto Focus, or Manual Focus, as you choose. I don't have this AF-D lens, yet, but am convinced by all I have learned in research that it is worth having. So, I am buying it next month, and will then put it through it's paces. I can let you know more later on.


----------

