Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF non-D vs. D

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Brian Sullivan - 16 Jun 2006 18:49 GMT

I recently purchased a Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF lens (used) for my D50. I am
guessing this lens was from the mid 80's (perhaps on a 4004?). Made in
Japan from the labels.

It seems to work well on the D50 and seemed to be a relative bargain. I
am quite happy with the purchase.

I am just wondering what I am giving up (if anything or gaining?) over
the modern D version.

Reply to this Message

DoN. Nichols - 16 Jun 2006 19:47 GMT

According to Brian Sullivan <briansullivan@gmail.com>:

> I recently purchased a Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF lens (used) for my D50. I am
> guessing this lens was from the mid 80's (perhaps on a 4004?). Made in
> Japan from the labels.
>
> It seems to work well on the D50 and seemed to be a relative bargain. I
> am quite happy with the purchase.

I have a 50mm f1.4 autofocusj Nikkor (also used) which I got for
$100.00. It also works well on my D70.

> I am just wondering what I am giving up (if anything or gaining?) over
> the modern D version.

    I *think* that the major difference is that the D series reports
the focus distance to the camera, which may be used as additional
information when controlling the flash. And -- it is recorded in the
EXIF data in the image file, for future use if you ever really *need* to
know how far away something was.

    Enjoy,
        DoN.

Signature

Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Reply to this Message

Jeremy Nixon - 16 Jun 2006 21:43 GMT

> I *think* that the major difference is that the D series reports
> the focus distance to the camera, which may be used as additional
> information when controlling the flash. And -- it is recorded in the
> EXIF data in the image file, for future use if you ever really *need* to
> know how far away something was.

It's actually not recorded in the EXIF data.

Signature

Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Reply to this Message

DoN. Nichols - 16 Jun 2006 22:03 GMT

According to Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>:

> > I *think* that the major difference is that the D series reports
> > the focus distance to the camera, which may be used as additional
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> It's actually not recorded in the EXIF data.

    Perhaps it is just not shown by the tools which you use.

======================================================================
ExifTool Version Number : 5.05
File Name : dsc_4264.jpg
File Size : 2812KB
File Type : JPEG
Make : NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model Name : NIKON D70

    [ ... ]

Subject Distance Range : Unknown (0) <--------------------

    [ ... ]

Lens : 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 AF
======================================================================

    O.K. The exif information does include a field for distance,
but when I check against a lens which has the 'D' designation, I must
admit that it is not recorded. (I've trimmed more information out of
this one.

======================================================================
Subject Distance Range : Unknown (0)

    [ ... ]

Lens : 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 D
======================================================================

    So, yes, the exiftool reports a "Distance" value, but it is
reported as "Unknown".

    Thanks for correcting me.
        DoN.

Signature

Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Reply to this Message

Jeremy Nixon - 16 Jun 2006 22:55 GMT

> So, yes, the exiftool reports a "Distance" value, but it is
> reported as "Unknown".

Right; EXIF has a field for it, but Nikon doesn't use it.

Also, my understanding is that the "D" lenses don't report the exact focus
distance; they use some number (12?) of "zones", which is good enough for
the flash metering. So even if they chose to record the data, the exact
distance is not available.

Signature

Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Reply to this Message

Brian Sullivan - 16 Jun 2006 23:20 GMT

> > So, yes, the exiftool reports a "Distance" value, but it is
> > reported as "Unknown".
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> --

So the gist of this is that there is little advantage to the D
designated lenses? Are there advantages to the older lens -- build
quality, glass quality or ..?

Reply to this Message

Jeremy Nixon - 16 Jun 2006 23:59 GMT

> So the gist of this is that there is little advantage to the D
> designated lenses?

Correct. Supposedly it makes flash metering better, but that's about it.
It also enables something called "3D Matrix Metering", which near as I can
tell is just like regular Matrix Metering with a fancy-sounding name.

> Are there advantages to the older lens -- build
> quality, glass quality or ..?

Not generally, no. A lot of people say the older 50/1.8 non-D which was
made in Japan is better-built than the current D one, but I've never seen
anything that convinced me of that. In fact, because of the mystique of
the "Made in Japan" version, if you have one, you could probably sell it
on eBay for more than you paid for it, buy a brand-new D version, and come
out ahead of the game with basically exactly the same lens.

Signature

Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Reply to this Message

nospam - 17 Jun 2006 08:09 GMT

> > So, yes, the exiftool reports a "Distance" value, but it is
> > reported as "Unknown".
>
> Right; EXIF has a field for it, but Nikon doesn't use it.

dumping all exif tags from a several pictures i took, it looks like
nikon does write distance information:

Focus Distance : 5.31 m
Focus Distance : 10.00 m
Focus Distance : 7.94 m
Focus Distance : 0.79 m
Focus Distance : 0.63 m
Focus Distance : 0.71 m

first three were 28-200g and the last three were 18-70dx, all taken
with a nikon d50.

> Also, my understanding is that the "D" lenses don't report the exact focus
> distance; they use some number (12?) of "zones", which is good enough for
> the flash metering. So even if they chose to record the data, the exact
> distance is not available.

there are quite a variety of distances reported. it may not be 'exact'
but it looks like much more than 12 zones. however, i didn't sample
enough images to say how accurate it is.

Reply to this Message

Jeremy Nixon - 17 Jun 2006 10:26 GMT

> dumping all exif tags from a several pictures i took, it looks like
> nikon does write distance information:

Well, that's bizarre as heck. I'd seen it empty so much I figured... oh,
wait. It's empty in my files from the D70, but the D2X appears to write
it. Makes sense.

> there are quite a variety of distances reported. it may not be 'exact'
> but it looks like much more than 12 zones. however, i didn't sample
> enough images to say how accurate it is.

It does look like more than 12, at least from an initial inspection.
But the same values show up a lot, and, well, it's far from accurate;
I see "3.98m" in two different shots, which were more like 6 and 8
meters. Indeed, scanning the output, "3.98m" seems to show up quite
a lot with the 35mm f/2 D lens, I've got it in a whole bunch of pictures
from that one.

It would be interesting to experiment, as it may well be only a small
number of zones but different for each lens. It's writing the values
with an absurd number of decimal places given the inaccuracy, and it
appears to use 0.01 for non-D lenses.

Hmm. It's also claiming at a macro shot from probably eight inches
was 158.49m, and 177.83m for another.

Still, good catch; I'd have never thought to re-check it with the newer
camera.

So I guess the bottom line is that *newer* Nikons are in fact writing
this field, but its value is questionable given the lack of accuracy.

Signature

Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Reply to this Message