A decent walkabout optic.

The heart warming facts about Nikon’s AFD zoom optics is not only that many choices exist but also that many are insanely inexpensive in mint, used condition.

My mint copy of the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 ran me but $78 plus $7 to Amazon for a 62mm UV protective filter. I did not bother getting a lens hood as the one for this lens is huge and mostly useless.

The rational ‘walkabout’ comparison is the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 IF lens which adds internal focusing for a smoother feel and extends more at both ends. I have been using the 24-120mm on my Nikon F100 with Ektar film with considerable success. If there’s a complaint it’s the generous dollops of distortion, barrel at the wide end and pincushion at the long. This needs correcting in LR with architectural subjects, a pain but not hard to do.

So how does the 28-105mm differ? Bulk and weight are much the same, the zoom rings displays a tad more stiction owing to the traditional design, the optic is faster at the long end by one stop and adds a handy macro feature.

Here are test images – you can compare with those from the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 by clicking here.

In summary edge performance at the wide end is ghastly at full aperture; you need to stop down to f/8 to make it useable. The 24-120mm optic is far better in this regard. The edges from the 28-105mm get progressively better as the focal length increases. Whereas the 24-120mm lens shows chromatic aberration (easily fixed in LR) the 28-105mm has none. Not published here, distortion characteristics disclose that the 28-105 shows mild barrel distortion at 28mm, disappearing at 50mm or longer. That is much better than the 24-120 which barrels greatly at 24mm and pincushions north of 50mm. Neither optic does a particularly good job of rendering out-of-focus areas, both yielding results that are too ‘busy’ for my taste. The 28-105mm lens shows no light fall off at the edges at any aperture or focal length. I have found that the later lens correction profile in LR for the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 G VR optic (the one with no aperture ring) works well with this earlier AF D lens.

Handling of both optics on the D700 DSLR and F100 film SLR is excellent. They balance well, zoom rings lack any gritty feel, AF is as fast as you need for all but sports subjects and as I always use aperture priority with aperture control transferred to the lens, the aperture ring on the 28-105mm is easier to access as the lens is less steeply pyramided at that location, making the ring more accessible. Not a big deal in practice.

The macro range on the 28-105mm is accessed by setting the focal length between 50 and 105mm and focus between infinity and 0.5 feet. The switch on the barrel is flipped and you get a very handy macro lens with a focal length range of 50-105mm. The long focal length setting is especially handy as it allows better clearance between the front of the lens and the subject. This is the closest I could get at 105mm:

The magnification ratio computes to 1/4 life size.

Sharpness, even at f/4.5 in the macro range, is excellent – fully useable.

Conclusion: If you need 24mm (which is much wider than 28mm) and useable edge performance near full aperture at the wide end, the 24-120mm is the better choice. If you prefer a minimum of post-processing to remove distortion the 28-105mm is to be preferred. The construction quality and material choices (more plastic) of the 28-105mm are lower but hardly a deal breaker and the macro feature is both useable and the optics excellent. Weights of the two lenses with filters are 16oz for the 28-105mm and 20 oz for the 24-120mm.

It’s a nice choice to have to make with each lens selling for well under $100. I have both!

A curious bunch.

Before Nikon migrated to AF lenses with built in linear focus motors – the AFS series – they marketed the AF and AFD ranges which used a screwdriver linkage in the lens for focusing, the actual focus motor being in the body of better film and digital Nikon SLRs.

The Nikon screw drive motor coupling on the body and in the lens mount.
The film era F100 works well with these and just as well with the latest AFS optics.

While a seemingly Rube Goldberg solution it has proved to be solid and reliable with millions of lenses made. The line started around 1986 and one or two are made to this day.

What is odd about the AF and AFD lenses (the later AFD versions added an enhanced metering chip for better results with flash; otherwise all else was identical) is just how much construction quality varied across the line. I have a half-dozen:

My small AF/AFD collection – 20/2.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and 80-200/2.8 ED IF rear row;
35-70/2.8 and 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 front row.

The mechanical stand-outs here are the 80-200 and 35-70. The former is a two ring zoom, the latter a push-pull design which wears less well, the action becoming sloppy with age. Both are fabulously made and optically as good as it gets. The 80-200 is still sold new at over $1,000, my mint sample running me just $476. The limited range 35-70 is long discontinued (1987-2005) and is often found for under $200. Both are wonderful bargains.

The mechanical quality story with the others is quite a bit different. All these optics have proper aperture rings, a feature sadly deleted from the latest AFS line where apertures are set using one of the command dials on the body of the camera. The 50/1.8 is a piece of garbage. Cheap materials, rattling internals, awful controls. And dirt cheap at $70 used, mint. The 20mm ($230) and 85mm ($270) are mechanically so-so, but focus fast with the 85mm especially pleasant to use in the portrait studio where acquiring focus on the subject’s eyes is a piece of cake with AF especially fast.

And the 24-120mm is a jack-of-all-trades and master of none. It comes with fairly pronounced barrel distortion, rather wobbly construction, an unspectacular f/5.6 at the long end yet it’s invariably found on my D700 or F100 when I want to lug only one optic along. The 24mm comes in especially handy for architectural images and the barrel distortion is easily removed in LR. At well under $100 for a mint one, it’s hard to pass by.

Where Nikon did not compromise is in the optical quality of these lenses. All are at least as good as their MF predecessors with the 80-200 considerably better (and bulkier) than what came before. It’s a weapon, not a lens. The 85mm, with its chintzy external plastic, can almost match the classic 85/1.8 MF at full aperture, equalling it at f/4 and below. And even that piece of garbage, the 50/1.8 is almost as good as the classic 50/2 MF – it’s 1.5 stops less sharp at f/2 compared to the old MF optic, but usable wide open even in the extreme corners. Finally the 20/2.8, which scarcely needs AF owing to large depth of field, is almost as good as the classic 20/3.5 UD MF …. made 21 years earlier.

If MF is not for you, or you are just feeling lazy, none of these economically priced AF/AFD Nikkors will let you down. Just make sure your body comes with the screwdriver coupling or AF will be lost. Sadly, none of these will AF on the new FF Z6/Z7 mirrorless bodies, which lack the screwdrive motor in either the body or the related adapter.

For an index of my Nikkor pieces click here.