preferences of the 1.8 AFS-Nikkors

[Frank Fremerey]

I forgot the 1.8/85G ... Sorry .... One of my favourite optics of all time. You can see the very significant wear on mine.

[DanAa]

I'm happy with my AF-S 24/1.8. Sharp across.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

As evidenced by Dan's mountain plateau (Hardangervidda?) picture, the 24/1.8 handles strong light sources with aplomb and grace. Needless to say this presumes the front element is immaculately clean ... something I often struggle with as I shoot first, then look afterwards.

[Frank Fremerey]

The 1.8/20G is also extremely versatile, from Architecture to group shots FX/DX, night time or daytime, even low light portraits, like the one I just developed:

[DanAa]

As evidenced by Dan's mountain plateau (Hardangervidda?) picture, the 24/1.8 handles strong light sources with aplomb and grace. Needless to say this presumes the front element is immaculately clean ... something I often struggle with as I shoot first, then look afterwards.

Yes, Bjørn, Hardangervidda, easternmost part (Vegglifjell in Rollag/Nore&Uvdal)

[Airy]

excellent portrait, Frank

[John Geerts]

I sold all my 1.8 G AF-S Nikkors as I didn't like it's rendering. (only kept the 50G that came with the Df)

For landscape/nature (on the very wide side) I prefer:

17-35/2.8
16/2.8 AF-D Fisheye
20/4 Ai
10-20 Sigma 4-5.6  (on DX)

[Frank Fremerey]

excellent portrait, Frank

Thank you. And look at the resolution power of the lens:

http://zentralkraft.com/KO7_1992_00001.JPG

I made a 50x75 qcm print and was far from the limit! Plus the development is not very good.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A bit oversharpened, at least for web display. Agreed.

[Frank Fremerey]

A bit oversharpened, at least for web display. Agreed.

I confess to not have managed to preserve all details. Here is the RAW: http://zentralkraft.com/KO7_1992.NEF

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

I avoid all these 1.8 G for one bad reason triplet : the plasticky feel, the absence of aperture ring, and the subpar MF handling.

These lenses are obviously not made with manual focusing in mind, a clear weakness IMO. However, I cannot fault the construction quality. It is plastic, but I see no reason to think that the aperture and autofocus mechanisms are mechanically weak. Am I wrong?

[David H. Hartman]

These lenses are obviously not made with manual focusing in mind, a clear weakness IMO. However, I cannot fault the construction quality. It is plastic, but I see no reason to think that the aperture and autofocus mechanisms are mechanically weak. Am I wrong?

I'm no expert here but I think the light weight of the plastics used is important for AF performance. The slight slop in the focus ring may also have something to do with AF performance. I'm no fan of either but these features do not adversely affect their usefulness as AF lenses.

The biggest issue for me is size. I can accept the shortcomings of my AF-S 105/2.8G ED VR Micro but the size, it's a Honker. The year round resident Canadian geese put their wings over their beaks and snicker when I mount the lens. The VR is very useful when a tripod can't be used. Storing the lens in a bag  is a pain. The AF-S 105/2.8G ED VR is no replacement for the 105/2.5 AI/AIS or 105/2.8 AIS Nikkors.

I don't see these lenses as poorly made but they are made to a price point in today's market.

Dave Hartman

[mysh]

the 20mm 1.8G is probably my favorite lens right now. I love that lens and I find it far superior to the older 20mm lenses.

[chris dees]

I sold all my 1.8 G AF-S Nikkors as I didn't like it's rendering. (only kept the 50G that came with the Df)
....

Same reason for me and I got rid of the 50 as well.
I'm more into the 1.4's (24G, 58G and 105E), but it takes a while to get them.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

the 20mm 1.8G is probably my favorite lens right now. I love that lens and I find it far superior to the older 20mm lenses.

I cannot fault my 20mm 1.8G either.