My liking for the older 50 and 85 is, of course coloured by the fact that I have found prints from the AF-S versions harder to sell my clients on as they seem to appreciate the busier background for some reason. It might be the smoother transition they like. The difference is small, but it is there. If you seldom go over 8x10" print size, they do look quite similar but the difference is easy to see on 11x17" prints and above. As 11x17" is a mainstay for commercial portrait sales, I use the older lenses even if I use the *much* older 105/2.5 or the 105/2DC more than the 85 on FX.
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Posted 07 March 2018 - 04:43 PM
Well, as I indicated, I'm not saying that the newer lenses are necessarily better optically or even aesthetically. The beauty of the images they, or indeed any lens, produces is of course in the eye of the beholder.
My main point was practicality. Having lenses that will fit future amateur bodies with a prayer of working. I have a feeling that Nikon management is starting to look at the venerable F lens mount (and all the millions of lenses already in circulation) as a bit of a liability rather than the asset it used to be. Thus, I see future Nikon amateur bodies as probably only supporting "modern" lenses. If a photographer wants to use his or her legacy lenses, they're going to have to buy pro bodies.