G /AF-S lenses
Discussion
)? The AF-S lenses are quite a lot more expensive, but will I (a complete SLR newbie) notice the difference?It's actually two different things (we're talking Nikkors).
'G' means that there is no aperture ring on the lens - this function is controlled by the camera. Note: Whilst some cheap lenses are 'G', it does not mean that all 'G' lenses are cheap!
'AF-S' means silent wave focusing: much faster and quieter than mechanical drives.
I don't mind whether a lens is 'G' or not, but AF-S is a definite advantage IMO.
The other initials you'll find are 'ED' for Extra dispersion glass, which is better than ordinary glass, and 'IF' for Internal Focusing. This means the front of the lens doesn't rotate as you focus - handy for certain filters and lens hoods!
'G' means that there is no aperture ring on the lens - this function is controlled by the camera. Note: Whilst some cheap lenses are 'G', it does not mean that all 'G' lenses are cheap!
'AF-S' means silent wave focusing: much faster and quieter than mechanical drives.
I don't mind whether a lens is 'G' or not, but AF-S is a definite advantage IMO.
The other initials you'll find are 'ED' for Extra dispersion glass, which is better than ordinary glass, and 'IF' for Internal Focusing. This means the front of the lens doesn't rotate as you focus - handy for certain filters and lens hoods!
Some simple "starters" then.
I believe that Nikon make all their own glass. Which is a good start.
Someone told me once that there aren't many glass manufacturers and that soem of the "cheaper" lens brands and the "cheaper" Nikon own lenses will be glass not to the best tolerances - I don't know how true this is but just pass it on for thought. This means that you could get a brilliant lens.
The AF-S range of lenses do what all the AF D and the AF G's do. Plus they have motors (which makes them heavier) for autofocus. Where elements have to move long (relatively) distances, the S lenses are apparently significantly and noticeably faster.
Then there's the build quality. The AF-S's are built to demanding Pro specs. They are built to survive nuclear wars and rugby scrums and being run over by rally cars....well not really, but you get my drift. Usually the AF-S is faster too - which has benefits in many ways, including the fact that you can match a TC and maintain metering and autofocus satisfactorily, as well as low light and DOF issues.
The G's have "lost" their aperture ring. Which, being the G.O.M. that I am, I think is a real shame. And I am still grumbling about losing this on the D70
Mind, I am not (quite) as arsy about it as some old duffers on Nikon fora!!!
IMHO - you do get what you pay for. you have to work out if it's what you want. E.g. I would like a 300/2.8 AF-S and would use it to good effect photoing moving subjects, birds and sports, as well as adding a TC14 or 17 II. Sadly I'm not made of money.....
I believe that Nikon make all their own glass. Which is a good start.
Someone told me once that there aren't many glass manufacturers and that soem of the "cheaper" lens brands and the "cheaper" Nikon own lenses will be glass not to the best tolerances - I don't know how true this is but just pass it on for thought. This means that you could get a brilliant lens.
The AF-S range of lenses do what all the AF D and the AF G's do. Plus they have motors (which makes them heavier) for autofocus. Where elements have to move long (relatively) distances, the S lenses are apparently significantly and noticeably faster.
Then there's the build quality. The AF-S's are built to demanding Pro specs. They are built to survive nuclear wars and rugby scrums and being run over by rally cars....well not really, but you get my drift. Usually the AF-S is faster too - which has benefits in many ways, including the fact that you can match a TC and maintain metering and autofocus satisfactorily, as well as low light and DOF issues.
The G's have "lost" their aperture ring. Which, being the G.O.M. that I am, I think is a real shame. And I am still grumbling about losing this on the D70
Mind, I am not (quite) as arsy about it as some old duffers on Nikon fora!!! IMHO - you do get what you pay for. you have to work out if it's what you want. E.g. I would like a 300/2.8 AF-S and would use it to good effect photoing moving subjects, birds and sports, as well as adding a TC14 or 17 II. Sadly I'm not made of money.....
beano500 said:
Like I said a daft question.
No such thing
I haven't got started yet
As you're here... Sigma lenses - specifically the 70-300 F4-5.6 APO - I assume from the price it's a halfway house between the AF-S and the G Nikkor lenses, is that right?
(But AF-S £290, G £100(ish), Sigma £160)
beano500 said:
Bloomin' six minutes of composing and then I find that Simpo's woken up.....
Yo Ron mechsympathy said:
Like I said a daft question. So what is DX??
'DX' lenses are called digital lenses, but what it actually means is that they can't be used with 35mm film cameras, only Nikon digital ones.
edited to add: excellent, Beano's still typing; I shall continue... The D70 and D100 (and I think the new D2X) have a sensor that's smaller than a piece of 35mm film. DX lenses project a circle of light that can cover this sensor, but is not big enough to cover film. So, if you have a Nikon film SLR, eg the F60/70/80 etc, DX lenses won't work on them. HOWEVER, you CAN use lenses from film cameras on the digital cameras. The circle of light is bigger than the sensor, but that doesn't affec the photo.
Phew.
>> Edited by simpo two on Saturday 12th March 10:08
simpo two said:Although we could get all technical and say that the DX lenses are designed with the angle of incidence on the sensor as opposed to the angle of incidence on film in mind. With small sensors the angle that light hits can be important to the quality of the image.
The circle of light is bigger than the sensor, but that doesn't affec the photo.
I have four "film" lenses (and can't afford to go chasing new DX lenses) but I don't think there's a big issue with the quality of my images. In any case, the quality from only using the smaller, central patch should outweigh other disadvantages. I assume that with "film" lenses you're also facing the potential for more lens flare too (much more light - some unwanted - bouncing around the inside of your camera).
......hmm - think I might try making a pinhole. that'll solve all the lens problems!
mechsympathy said:
As you're here... Sigma lenses - specifically the 70-300 F4-5.6 APO - I assume from the price it's a halfway house between the AF-S and the G Nikkor lenses, is that right?
(But AF-S £290, G £100(ish), Sigma £160)
Well.....
You could go hunting out all the technical reviews and see if there is significant differences that are visible. Then you have to relate that to your own intended use. you can't really beat taking your body (and your camera body!) down to the nearest store and seeing what they feel like.
The best lens in the world is useless to you if you never put it on because it's too heavy, isn't balanced on your body, has the focus or zoom ring in the wrong place or generally doesn't feel right!
IMHO the images that you take are probably going to be just the same whether you spend £100 or £1000. The quality of the light, the subject matter and the output method are all going to be the same, right? It's your own creativity that makes the difference. I've got a wants list as long as your arm, but it's the images I can take today without a 10.5mm or a 300mm or a macro lens that should make me happy.
Edited to add:
a) Simpo's gone back to sleep?
b) Sigma is a bl00dy good make (personally I didn't like the "feel" of a couple of lenses I looked at when I went to Focus on Imaging - but then I'd just fallen in love with Nikon's 10.5mm) Obviously Nikon is too - and I don't think they'd consider offering any "duff" gear for the sake of their reputation. Also consider Tokina (quite underrated in the UK) and Tamron. you might consider some alternative lengths from them?
Also I wouldn't be afraid of going for a secondhand (all mine are) lens through a reputable dealer. I would think twice about buying optics through ebay though.
>> Edited by beano500 on Saturday 12th March 10:40
Thanks for all the advice guys. I'm a lot less confused than I was, especially in the shop this morning when I bought a D70 Mainly I have to say because it felt more solid than the Canon and fitted my hands better.
I did notice big difference in focusing speed between the longer lenses that I tried. But I've had a play with the camera and I suspect it'll be focusing faster than I can decide on framing etc
Mainly I have to say because it felt more solid than the Canon and fitted my hands better. I did notice big difference in focusing speed between the longer lenses that I tried. But I've had a play with the camera and I suspect it'll be focusing faster than I can decide on framing etc
beano500 said:
a) Simpo's gone back to sleep?
ZZzzzz-urrghh-whajawant?
The angle of incidence thing is a new one to me but I imagine it will be less for a DX lens as the image isn't spread so wide. Or maybe it is but the rear element is closer to the sensor?
Anyway, all you need to know is that you can't use DX lenses on film bodies!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff