What's the difference between AFS and AFD on Nikon lenses?

miurasv

miurasv

Suspended / Banned
Messages
339
Name
Steve.
Edit My Images
Yes
Was reading about the Nikon 80 - 200 f2.8 AF D on here and was wondering what the AF D is as opposed to AF S?
 
Simply,AFS is faster at autofocussing by all accounts, though the 80-200 AFD is certainly no slouch.
 
AF lenses use the camera's af motor, whereas the AF-S ones have the SWM (Silent Wave Motor) autofocus motor built in.
 
Go to bed Graham.........:thumbs:
 
AF lenses (the D is not part of it, though is an indicator of a later AF lens) have a screw drive driven by the camera.
AF-I lenses have a motor -- parts apparently now hard to get.
AF-S lenses have an internal Silent Wave Motor - latest type that work well on all bodies.

DX lenses will not work well on full frame film or digital bodies.
G lenses have no aperture ring.

On professional bodies there is little difference in performance (in some cases the screw drive can be faster! ...this is sometimes a design decision). On consumer bodies AF-S will win as the in-body motors aren't as powerful. The D40, D40x, D60, and new 1000 series have no in-body motor so you need to be looking for AF-S lenses here.
 
Not all AF-S lenses are equal, the new 50mm f/1.4 AF-S is an absolute dog focus speed wise compared to the older AF-D. Ditto the new AF-S 35mm f/1.8 as well.

Some of the newer AF-S consumer lenses ie the 16-85 VR, focus slower than older AF-S consumer lenses like the 24-85 AF-S.

AF-S doesn't mean automatically mean more speed. It might, but not always.
 
AF-D lenses communicate the focussing distance to the body to help calculate flash exposure (among other things) and need the body based AF motor to AF. AF-S lenses have the AF motor in the lens so they are suitable for the D40, 60 and other bodies that don't have the "screwdriver" AF motor in the body.

Dx lenses work on FF Digital bodies but either vignette a LOT or (if the body is set to the function) are cropped automatically to avoid this vignetting down to a much reduced pixel count, using the same sensor area as a Dx body.
 
Radiohead said:
Didn't we sort this out last week?

DX relates to cropped APS-C sensors, not digital per se.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so it will work on digital. Just what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by acs
DX lenses will not work well on full frame film or digital bodies.
Click to expand...

This statement is therefore wrong as it implies DX will not work well on digital bodies. They do.
 
bakedbeans said:
This statement is therefore wrong as it implies DX will not work well on digital bodies. They do.
Click to expand...

It is not wrong....the poster stated that DX lenses will not work well on Full-Frame film or digital cameras.
 
I was simply asking if you realise you're continually wrong on this. You said the same thing last week.

Digital bodies can be either:

APS-C (a 1.5x crop on Nikon, a 1.6x on Canon)
APS-H (a 1.3x crop, Canon only)
Full-frame (Nikon and Canon, no crop)

DX/DC/Di/EF-S lenses will ONLY work on the APS-C bodies unless you want a world of vignetting. They will not function properly on APS-H or full frame bodies.

Digital does not equal DX.
 
bakedbeans said:
You are a ****ing idiot and don't deserve business as you're just patronising.
Click to expand...

Guy is anything but patronising, a top bloke and a very talented photographer. Maybe you should think more before you type. :|
 
puddleduck said:
AF-S doesn't mean automatically mean more speed. It might, but not always.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with Andy here. As an example my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D focuses a lot faster than Nikkor 18-200 AF-S on my D200 (with 80-200 it feels instant). This is especially amazing considering all that mass that 80-200 has to move while focusing. The AF-S is usually more silent though.

So I personally would not let AF-S versus AF-D to be a decisive factor when choosing the lens.
 
dalex_257 said:
Totally agree with Andy here. As an example my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D focuses a lot faster than Nikkor 18-200 AF-S on my D200 (with 80-200 it feels instant). This is especially amazing considering all that mass that 80-200 has to move while focusing. The AF-S is usually more silent though.

So I personally would not let AF-S versus AF-D to be a decisive factor when choosing the lens.
Click to expand...

Going off subject here, from what you say about the Nikkor 80 - 200, this a great bang for buck lens. I've read that it's as good optically as a 70 - 200 VR but a lot cheaper. Not seen either of these lenses but is the 70 - 200 VR a lot better built and is the extra cost justified because of that and the VR too?
 
miurasv said:
Going off subject here, from what you say about the Nikkor 80 - 200, this a great bang for buck lens. I've read that it's as good optically as a 70 - 200 VR but a lot cheaper. Not seen either of these lenses but is the 70 - 200 VR a lot better built and is the extra cost justified because of that and the VR too?
Click to expand...

I'd say that for me the 80-200 AF-D (both single and two ring versions) and 80-200 AF-S are better build than 70-200 VR. They are all metal and feel (and weight) like a tank. I have a feeling that I can use my 80-200 AF-D to hammer nails if needed (not that I dare to try it out ;))

VR (whilst may be useful for someone - is something I can live without. It certainly is not worth the price difference for me.
 
dalex_257 said:
I'd say that for me the 80-200 AF-D (both single and two ring versions) and 80-200 AF-S are better build than 70-200 VR. They are all metal and feel (and weight) like a tank. I have a feeling that I can use my 80-200 AF-D to hammer nails if needed (not that I dare to try it out ;))

VR (whilst may be useful for someone - is something I can live without. It certainly is not worth the price difference for me.
Click to expand...

So there are AF S and AF D versions of the 80 - 200? Are they both f2.8 and are they both still being made?
 
miurasv said:
So there are AF S and AF D versions of the 80 - 200? Are they both f2.8 and are they both still being made?
Click to expand...

There are three versions of the 80-200mm f/2.8 lens.

v1 - push/pull zoom (af-d)
v2 - two-ring (af-d)
v3 - two-ring (af-s)
 
sdb123 said:
There are three versions of the 80-200mm f/2.8 lens.

v1 - push/pull zoom (af-d)
v2 - two-ring (af-d)
v3 - two-ring (af-s)
Click to expand...

Are all 3 still being made and how much do they cost?
 
miurasv said:
Are all 3 still being made and how much do they cost?
Click to expand...

I know that the v1 and v3 lenses are not being made anymore, I believe that that the v2 version is still being produced. As for price, you'll have to search around.
 
sdb123 said:
I know that the v1 and v3 lenses are not being made anymore, I believe that that the v2 version is still being produced. As for price, you'll have to search around.
Click to expand...

OK. Thanks very much.
 
miurasv said:
So there are AF S and AF D versions of the 80 - 200? Are they both f2.8 and are they both still being made?
Click to expand...

The AF-S is as rare as rocking horse plop-plops.

Here is mine:


DSC_2148.jpg

​

Smokes the 70-200 VR for build quality, and its a little better on full frame.

The AF-D is very nice as well, and better value than the 80-200 AF-S and the 70-200 VR.
 
Did you move your AF-D on Andy?

I've only ever owned the AF-D and that was lovely through the range.
 
sdb123 said:
Did you move your AF-D on Andy?

I've only ever owned the AF-D and that was lovely through the range.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't keep the AF-D, mainly as it won't take my Nikon AF-S TC's, not for optical reasons.

TBH in the 70-200 range, the best lens optically is the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, but the cronically embarrassing focusing slomo is the really killer. Otherwise I'd have the Tamron over any of the Sigmas or Nikkors.
 
miurasv said:
So there are AF S and AF D versions of the 80 - 200? Are they both f2.8 and are they both still being made?
Click to expand...

puddleduck said:
The AF-S is as rare as rocking horse plop-plops.
Click to expand...

They are rare but not that much. Genuine UK ones are popping up once in a while on fleebay and there are a few HK and US ones there.

It usually goes for around 700-800 pounds used. As Andy says the AF-D is better value - you can get one for 500-600 used.
 
dalex_257 said:
They are rare but not that much. Genuine UK ones are popping up once in a while on fleebay and there are a few HK and US ones there.

It usually goes for around 700-800 pounds used. As Andy says the AF-D is better value - you can get one for 500-600 used.
Click to expand...

Its very hard to find them without the squeaky AF-S motor syndrome. The 28-70 AF-S, 17-35 f/2.8 AF-S and 80-200 AF-S are all starting to hit 10 years old, and motor end-of-life signs are happening.

If buying any of those now, I would explicitely ask the question "does the AF-S motor squeak or squeal?".
 
puddleduck said:
Its very hard to find them without the squeaky AF-S motor syndrome. The 28-70 AF-S, 17-35 f/2.8 AF-S and 80-200 AF-S are all starting to hit 10 years old, and motor end-of-life signs are happening.

If buying any of those now, I would explicitely ask the question "does the AF-S motor squeak or squeal?".
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip - I haven't thought of that (was looking at getting 17-35)
 
Radiohead said:
I fully expect the new 70-200 to set a benchmark for this range.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but I still doubt that Nikon will return the former build quality though (i.e. that new lens will be comparable to 80-200 ones).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top