OK, with some reservations.

The 24-120mm Zoom Nikkor was made from 1996 through 2002. Many regard it as the worst AFD zoom, in much the way the 43-86mm Nikkor is similarly damned in the MF era.

My copy of the 43-86mm zoom shows that, in its Mark II version, the lens is a capable performer, and a lovely compact package on a smaller film camera body.

By contrast, the 24-120mm, with its high 5:1 zoom range, comes with more design compromises. For one, the lens is not constant aperture, the speed falling to f/5.6 at the long end. Second, there is considerable weakness in the edges at 24mm with poor definition and chromatic aberration aplenty. The optic also comes with a reputation for sample variation and the plastic content means there’s a bit of wobble in the extended part of the lens at longer focal lengths.

Shown here at 120mm, fully extended. The lens hood is as useless as these things get.

Then again, mine came mint, boxed, with caps, hood and no fewer than three 72mm filters – UV, IR (!) and ND. Quite why you would want an ND filter with a lens that is already natively slow beats me, but whatever. And the price of entry – and proceeds of exit if it’s not for you – was a very modest $83 shipped. After selling the useless IR and ND filters, my cost was $17!

At 24mm the lens is compact and the zoom action is by a rotating collar rather than trombone action, meaning the lens ages well with none of the slop common in well used push-pull zooms. You can compare sizes with the 85mm f/1.8 AFD, a decidedly superior optic, in this image:

The zoom is at 24mm. Note the dual aperture indexes – blue at 24mm, yellow at 120mm.

The good news here is that the lens is very sharp in the center at all apertures, with negligible chromatic aberration. AF is satisfyingly fast and very welcome given the lens’s small maximum apertures. There is fairly pronounced vignetting in the corners at anything below 50mm but that is easily corrected using Adobe’s lens correction profile in LR. At the edges the story is different. I’m reproducing extreme corner test images here as the center ones are so good. In all cases the lens correction profile was applied. These are 40x enlargements:

As Adobe does not include a profile for this optic with LR, I used that for the later VR version and it works well:

Lens correction profile applied in Lightroom.

At 24mm the extreme corners really suffer at full aperture, only coming into their own at f/11. At medium and long settings things are much better, as disclosed above.

Handling of out of focus areas is rather so-so, if not awful, at the long end using wider apertures. (At the short end it’s tough to get anything out of focus). See above.

So your under $100 investment gets you a lens with a wide zoom range, decent performance at most settings except at full aperture at the wide and, and so-so out of focus handling. But if you want to carry just one wide-range zoom for outdoor snaps, the 24-120mm AFD Nikkor checks many boxes. Use with a polarizing filter is tricky as the front element rotates some 30 degrees through the zoom range. Adjust the filter once the focal length is set.

Comparing the results with images from the Canon 5D using the 24-105mm L auto kit kens, the Canon shows even greater barrel distortion at 24mm and poor corner definition and chromatic aberration in the corners fully open. The Canon is larger and heavier, owing to its constant aperture design and is generally a stop or two sharper than the Nikon. It also costs a lot more.

For a comparison with the Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AF D lens, click here.

As good as it gets.

Recent articles here comparing the AF/AFD era autofocus Nikons, like the 20mm and the 50mm/1.8, confirm that the AF/AFD ‘plastic fantastic’ lenses certainly use a lot of plastic, but fantastic they are not. The old ‘metal era’ lenses outperform the AF ones easily, and are far better constructed in addition.

With the 85mm f/1.8 Nikons, the story is a little different.

85mm f/1.8 MF, 1969 vintage and the AFD version made in 1997. The AF takes a 62mm filter and hood,
not the usual 52mm HN-7 for the MF.

Previous experience with the AFD optic showed it to be quite special from f/2 down, but I was surprised to see how much better it was compared with the older MF lens, in which I had installed a CPU. Something was wrong. I was using the focus confirmation light in the Nikon D700 to determine focus, and it was clear that the MF lens was not at best focus with the viewfinder LED lit. So off to the bookshelf, which disclosed that the MF was focusing slightly in front of the target. An angled shot confirmed my suspicion:

Green line is where I focused. Red line is sharpest point.

The MF was not properly collimated. Refer back to a piece I wrote six years ago on how to collimate MF Nikons fitted with an aftermarket CPU. One of the functions of the CPU is that the point at which the body’s focus confirmation light illuminates can be shifted back or forward, eight small steps in each direction. One shift using the ’20’ function and this is what I got:

Green line (LED illuminated) and red line (sharpest point) now coincide.

This quick tweak now permitted proper comparison of the performance of the MF and AF lenses.

In the image pairs below the image from the MF lens is at the left:

At f/1.8.

At f/2.8.

At f/4

At f/5.6

Rendering of out-of-focus areas is similar, with that of the MF optic marginally preferable to my eyes. Both lenses are fully usable at f/1.8, a tribute to Nikon’s designers.

It’s clear that the MF lens is superior through f/2.8 after which differences are slight. The traditional warmer tones of the MF lenses are again notable here.

So the AFD lens is really good, and my studio image of my son Winston taken in 2012 testifies loudly to that fact:

Winston in his karate outfit. D700, 85/1.8 AFD Nikkor, two Novatron heads.

Either optic is a wonderful addition to any snapper’s arsenal. The MF lens is slower in use but outstanding in every way, while the AF version excels in the studio where critical focus on the eyes is made easy by the autofocus function.

Plastic fantastic and the Real Thing.

The AF on the left, the Real Thing on the right. 5.6 oz with AF against 7.2 oz without.

There really is no earthly reason why lenses encased in plastic or resins should be any worse than their metal enshrouded predecessors. On impact plastic is more likely to ‘give’ than dent, and the attendant benefits of light weight and durability are non trivial. Plastic bodies get glossy with wear, whether on a camera or lens, but retain their black finish, unlike plated or anodized metal. And nearly all of today’s Nikons use tough and light crinkle finish resins in the G series optics which are optically the best there is at any price. I own one of these, the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX lens, a 50mm FFE for the APS-C Nikon D2x, and it is excellent optically and durable mechanically. It shows barrel wear in an understated manner. And look at any old, maltreated metal era Nikon with a scalloped focusing ring where the black anodizing has worn off and you have something really ugly on your hands.

It does not get much uglier than this.

But show me an unsullied original of that metal era wonder and I will show you mechanical beauty from an era when lens design and execution reached new peaks, peaks largely emanating from Nippon Kogaku, Tokyo.

The 50mm AF (pre-D) Nikon shown above is a product of the 1990s and I can only think times must have been especially hard at the factory in Tokyo. The design of the plastic barrel is simply awful, devoid of ergonomics or artifice, and Nikon has abandoned its gorgeous engraving of numbers on the lens to screen printed paint, which eventually simply rubs off. This design awfulness extends to many lenses in the AF/AFD era, all using the competent if somewhat Rube Goldberg ‘screwdriver’ design to confer autofocus via a coupling in the bayonet mount. Many late film era and better grade digital bodies from Nikon provide this capability. (The later AFD lens variants are optically identical but add a distance reporting CPU for better operation with selected Nikon flashguns).

No, there really is no excusing the sheer awfulness of the looks of the AF/AFD 50mm Nikkor. Just one look – better still a feel – of the metal era 50mm f/2 Nikon HC lens (HC means six elements, multicoated; the earlier single coated version was simply ‘H’) tells you how a lens should be made, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. How do they compare optically?

Well, sad to relate the newer lens is optically worse in every regard at every aperture, center or corner. It shows high chromatic aberration fully open (color fringing) where the old lens shows none, it hotspots the center of the image below f/4 and the micro-contrast which the older lens delivers in abundance is simply missing in the AF lens.

But by all means buy the AF if AF is what you need. The very high standards of the metal era optic may not be equalled but we are talking state-of-the-art here, even by today’s standards. If the Leica Summicron is the reference for all 50mm lenses, then the 50mm f/2 Nikon HC more than gives it a run for the money. The AF/AFD will deliver decent results and at under $70 for a mint example is hardly a material economic drain. But, goodness, it feels awful to use. And using an ugly tool has never improved my images.

The 50’s era Summicron. Beauty and performance.

While there is nothing to choose between the optical performance of the 50mm Nikkor and Summicron of the era – though the Summicron will run you ten times as much as the Nikon on the used market – the Leitz lens comes with one nice plus. The finish is chrome plating and incredibly tough. I have never seen one worn through to the underlying brass. By contrast, the thin anodizing on the Nikon wears easily, leading to the ugly result shown above.

Not much changes.

Long term readers may recall that I swapped my 20mm f/3.5 MF AiS Nikkor of 1982 vintage for the much earlier 1973 20mm f/3.5 UD non-Ai Nikkor which I both Ai’d and chipped.

The optical trade-offs were clear. The older lens is superior in the center down to f/8 while the AiS optic delivers better edges fully open and remains better at small apertures. This works for me as the ergonomics and sheer delight in the handling of the 20mm UD remain unparalleled. This is how lenses should be made. After 5 years with the UD Nikkor I am as happy as can be.

Nikon D3x, 20mm UD Nikkor, ISO200.

A much later 20mm f/2.8 AFD Nikkor recently joined my stable and a quick check of performance discloses that Nikon had made little progress in center definition by 1989 when this lens was made. Against the f/3.5 UD, the UD is sharper in the center down to f/8, after which the two are comparable. The AF optic is better at the edges through f/8 (though not as good as the Ai-S predecessor!) and remains slightly better through the smallest aperture. Be sure to keep your fingers away from the focus collar in AF mode as it spins around merrily in finding focus.

AFD lens on the left – competent but ugly.

I’m not publishing test snaps here as they would look much like the earlier ones comparing the UD with the AiS, the only difference being that in Scottsdale my backyard features a lovely desert garden rather than the ugly utility pole from the Bay Area.

The UD weighs in at a solid 14oz, courtesy of its all metal construction, with the plastic-fantastic AF/AFD at a mere 10oz, barely more than the AiS with AF thrown in. Impressive, if not beautiful.

AF is really not necessary in a lens this wide where depth of field covers for focusing errors, but at $230 delivered with Nikon filter, hood and caps, who is complaining?

If you want the last word in central definition and handling, go for the UD. If compactness and solid overall performance is your thing, the AiS is indicated. And for those wanting AF with little weight penalty, the AF/AFD is the right choice, if you can live with all that plastic. The early AF was improved with a revised CPU in 1994 which provides distance metering for Nikon flashes, being renamed ‘AFD’. If you want to save some cash and do not use flash, the AF predecessor has identical optics and mechanics. All of these in mint condition can be found for around $200 but UD variants are hard to find in pristine shape as the scalloped metal focus collar does not take well to hard use and looks ugly once the black anodizing starts coming off. The UD, the oldest optic here, is also the best at controlling flare spots. Not all change is progress ….

There’s also the 20mm f/2.8 AiS MF Nikkor, first sold in 1994 and still available new for almost $700 which I profiled here. For the money asked I really cannot recommend it new or used ($400-$500) as its corner performance is really not much to boast about.

All of these lenses are easily chipped – a simple glue-on operation. The f/3.5 AiS and f/2.8 AiS come Ai’d from the factory. Adding an Ai fork to the UD is not nuclear physics, and I illustrate that in the first link above.

All these 20mm Nikons exhibit the complex ‘mustache’ or wave distortion and for the UD, f/3.5 AiS and f/2.8 AiS you can download my lens correction profile here which fixes that and removes vignetting and most chromatic aberration. The profile for the AF/AFD comes bundled from Adobe with Lightroom and works well.