QUOTE(f5calvin @ Aug 9 2014, 02:26 AM)
I have some. QUOTE(ragnarokB2 @ Aug 9 2014, 03:10 AM)
Indeed AF-S -es are often the bang of the buck, but the value is nothing if you can't afford to have one. Having cheaper lenses will allow me to slowly step into various kinds of photography. I'm also a noobie user, only had a DSLR for about a year.
Talk about resale value, I noticed vintage MF are priced rather high for their functions. Got the 50mm 1.8 E series which is 100% manual and the metallic feel and smoothness are just irresistible that I decided to keep it instead of swapping to AF-D for the same (or lower) price.
Yes, nowadays the newer lenses are all plastic. Gone are the ones with metal built crinkle finish like a tank.Talk about resale value, I noticed vintage MF are priced rather high for their functions. Got the 50mm 1.8 E series which is 100% manual and the metallic feel and smoothness are just irresistible that I decided to keep it instead of swapping to AF-D for the same (or lower) price.
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
But to think about it, the change to the current plastic is all about weight savings.
QUOTE(copperwire93 @ Aug 9 2014, 09:32 AM)
I'm curious how much difference in terms of image quality between AF-D and AF-S.
If I have a D7000, I would buy the AF-D if the difference is not that much because of the cheaper price.
Those lenses are hard to find, the most common lens you can find in the market, is the prime 50mm. 28-70mm still expensive too.
When it comes to macro, the performance between AF-D and AF-S is closer because usually they are stopped down a lot. But usually on a high density sensor like the D7000, the imperfections of the AF-D lenses will show. Sometimes desirable, sometimes not.If I have a D7000, I would buy the AF-D if the difference is not that much because of the cheaper price.
Those lenses are hard to find, the most common lens you can find in the market, is the prime 50mm. 28-70mm still expensive too.
On another note, when getting the old AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8, you need to be careful with the AF-S motor. They 1st batch ones easily fail after years of usage.
QUOTE(pugger79 @ Aug 9 2014, 11:18 AM)
During my early canon days the 17-55 f2.8 IS was a vacuum cleaner. Sucks in dust like no tomorrow. Sent it in for free cleaning at canon subang.
I think the other lens that sucks dust is the Canon 100-400mm. Same design like the Nikon AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 push pull 1st gen lens.I find in terms of service, Canon is heaps better. When I started out, Nikon SC did simple service such as sensor cleaning for free ! Beat that. After that, FOC only applies to DSLRs within the 1st year warranty. Now every thing will be charged.
Oh, the only thing good about Nikon SC is that they honour the international warranty of lenses unlike Canon where there's no such thing as international warranty for lenses.
QUOTE(iXora.ix @ Aug 9 2014, 12:29 PM)
I see. Where did you send? All my lens are nikon and consider to do clc also as the lens feels like rough. Just feel wanna to put some wd 40 inside xD
Rreally? Haha. I dont have any bravery to suck using vacuun cleaner. The dust are visible AFTER my warranty period is over.
I think what pugger79 meant was the lens sucks dust like a vacuum cleaner. Not use a vacuum cleaner to suck dust from the lens. Rreally? Haha. I dont have any bravery to suck using vacuun cleaner. The dust are visible AFTER my warranty period is over.
The lube inside the lens is a very special light grease if I'm not mistaken. Something like WD40 is very corrosive on plastics and rubber O rings.
Aug 9 2014, 02:42 PM

Quote
0.0492sec
0.60
7 queries
GZIP Disabled