Nikon AF-S lenses - are they really faster?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Stealth, Mar 16, 2005.

  1. Stealth

    Stealth Guest

    Can anyone tell me the relative improvement in autofocusing speed between
    the Nikon 80-200 AF-D lens and its AF-S counterpart.

    I'm planning on buying one of them and using it for sports photography.

    TIA-
    Stealth, Mar 16, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Stealth

    Rob Guest

    Stealth wrote:

    > Can anyone tell me the relative improvement in autofocusing speed between
    > the Nikon 80-200 AF-D lens and its AF-S counterpart.
    >
    > I'm planning on buying one of them and using it for sports photography.
    >
    > TIA-
    >
    >

    You would not use the AF after you have tried the AFS lenses. Internal
    camera motor compared to the lens motor 70-200 2.8 AFS lens it is
    Rob, Mar 16, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Stealth

    [BnH] Guest

    YES
    but .... much heavier too :(

    Tested om CAM1300 camera :)

    =bob=

    "Stealth" <> wrote in message
    news:pvSZd.114131$FM3.82551@fed1read02...
    > Can anyone tell me the relative improvement in autofocusing speed between
    > the Nikon 80-200 AF-D lens and its AF-S counterpart.
    >
    > I'm planning on buying one of them and using it for sports photography.
    >
    > TIA-
    >
    >
    [BnH], Mar 16, 2005
    #3
  4. Stealth

    Ken Tough Guest

    Stealth <> wrote:

    >Can anyone tell me the relative improvement in autofocusing speed between
    >the Nikon 80-200 AF-D lens and its AF-S counterpart.


    The motor drive for the AF is in the camera, so it can perhaps also
    depend on the body you are using.

    IME, my AF-S is a world apart from the AF.

    With such a top fast lens, you should also consider that only the
    AF-S will let you use a teleconverter and still have autofocus.

    --
    Ken Tough
    Ken Tough, Mar 16, 2005
    #4
  5. Used them both and after using the AFS for a few hours, I qualified the old
    AF as SLOW.
    Jan Pasterkamp, Mar 16, 2005
    #5
  6. "Stealth" <> wrote:

    >Can anyone tell me the relative improvement in autofocusing speed between
    >the Nikon 80-200 AF-D lens and its AF-S counterpart.


    The AF-S lenses gave the F4 a new life in the AF department.

    Peter
    Peter Rongsted, Mar 16, 2005
    #6
  7. Stealth

    Guest

    In rec.photo.digital Stealth <> wrote:
    > Can anyone tell me the relative improvement in autofocusing speed between
    > the Nikon 80-200 AF-D lens and its AF-S counterpart.


    The difference is great: AF-S is several times faster.

    For small lenses AF-S is not a big deal, but with monsters like the
    80-200 2.8 it becomes really important.

    Andrew.
    , Mar 16, 2005
    #7
  8. Stealth

    BG250 Guest

    > With such a top fast lens, you should also consider that only the
    > AF-S will let you use a teleconverter and still have autofocus.


    Don't teleconverters for Nikon have the drive shaft that passes AF on to the
    lens for non AF-S? I'm familiar with Pentax AF that has the shaft in the AF
    converters.
    bg
    BG250, Mar 16, 2005
    #8
  9. Stealth

    Guest

    BG250 <> wrote:
    >> With such a top fast lens, you should also consider that only the
    >> AF-S will let you use a teleconverter and still have autofocus.


    > Don't teleconverters for Nikon have the drive shaft that passes AF on to the
    > lens for non AF-S?


    No. I think some third party ones did, but that's irrlevant now.

    Andrew.
    , Mar 16, 2005
    #9
  10. Stealth

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    In article <r13phGAV8$>,
    Ken Tough <> wrote:
    >Stealth <> wrote:
    >
    >>Can anyone tell me the relative improvement in autofocusing speed between
    >>the Nikon 80-200 AF-D lens and its AF-S counterpart.

    >
    >The motor drive for the AF is in the camera, so it can perhaps also
    >depend on the body you are using.


    It does. My Nikon N90s is *much* faster in a full range
    autofocus sweep with the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5D.

    And the older 50mm f1.4 seems faster (and noisier) than the
    zoom listed above. I haven't tried it on the N90s yet, as the D70 is so
    much nicer than a converted N90s at only 1.3 MP.

    >IME, my AF-S is a world apart from the AF.
    >
    >With such a top fast lens, you should also consider that only the
    >AF-S will let you use a teleconverter and still have autofocus.


    Certainly a point to consider -- though I tend to avoid
    teleconverters.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
    --
    Email: <> | 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 ---
    DoN. Nichols, Mar 17, 2005
    #10
  11. Stealth

    Ken Tough Guest

    DoN. Nichols <> wrote:

    >>With such a top fast lens, you should also consider that only the
    >>AF-S will let you use a teleconverter and still have autofocus.

    >
    > Certainly a point to consider -- though I tend to avoid
    >teleconverters.


    I don't use TCs either, but mostly because they make the lens too
    slow to be useful. With the 70-200 f2.8 VR, you could have a
    stabilised 400mm f4 as well, which would be fantastic value.

    --
    Ken Tough
    Ken Tough, Mar 17, 2005
    #11
  12. Stealth

    Roger Guest

    In my usage, the AF-S is clearly faster than the AF/AFD counterparts.
    I use several single focal length lenses frequently and I still am
    amazed every time I mount an AFS lens. There have even been times when
    I have to check that it is working because they are so fast and so
    quiet.

    The speed of any particular lens is also dependent on the amount of
    power a body can provide. For static subjects, the close to infinity
    focus speed of my AF-S lenses are perceptibly faster on my F5 with 8
    lithium batteries than on my F100 with four lithium batteries.

    Regards,
    Roger

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:55:29 -0800, "Stealth"
    <> wrote:

    >Can anyone tell me the relative improvement in autofocusing speed between
    >the Nikon 80-200 AF-D lens and its AF-S counterpart.
    >
    >I'm planning on buying one of them and using it for sports photography.
    >
    >TIA-
    >
    Roger, Mar 17, 2005
    #12
  13. Stealth

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Stealth writes:

    > Can anyone tell me the relative improvement in autofocusing speed between
    > the Nikon 80-200 AF-D lens and its AF-S counterpart.
    >
    > I'm planning on buying one of them and using it for sports photography.


    The AF-S lenses are indeed very fast. Piezoelectric actuators (used in
    the AF-S lenses, although Nikon calls them "silent wave" and Canon calls
    them "ultrasonic") are very fast and precise, with high torque, so they
    work much better than mere electric motors. They are quieter, too.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, Mar 18, 2005
    #13
  14. Stealth

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:43:09 +0200, in rec.photo.digital Ken Tough
    <> wrote:


    >I don't use TCs either, but mostly because they make the lens too
    >slow to be useful. With the 70-200 f2.8 VR, you could have a
    >stabilised 400mm f4 as well, which would be fantastic value.


    Minor correction, with the TC-20E you lose two stops, so the combo is
    f/5.6, not f/4. The TC also slows the focusing a bit, not as snappy as with
    the lens itself. But, imo a better way of going, though a bit more costly,
    than the 80-400 f/4.5-5.6.
    ----------
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
    Ed Ruf, Mar 18, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Zimran Douglas

    Is Firefox really faster and IE

    Zimran Douglas, Jan 11, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,018
    biomed
    Jan 14, 2005
  2. SelfImporantName
    Replies:
    134
    Views:
    3,323
    dj_nme
    Jul 13, 2007
  3. MarkH
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    337
    Pacific Dragon
    Aug 18, 2005
  4. hamstar
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    295
    J Brockley
    Mar 20, 2006
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    331
    RichA
    Mar 23, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page