What are the differences...


Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JerChan

Guest
I was surfing around the Nikon website looking at their range of lenses when I notice that all their model numbers for their lenses ends with a prefix.

Either D, IF-ED, IF, D ED, E, IF ED II.

What is the difference?
 

ckiang

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
6,405
0
36
47
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
www.ckphoto.net
Originally posted by JerChan
I was surfing around the Nikon website looking at their range of lenses when I notice that all their model numbers for their lenses ends with a prefix.

Either D, IF-ED, IF, D ED, E, IF ED II.

What is the difference?
D lenses have a chip in them to relay Distance information to the camera for exposure purposes.

IF refers to Internal Focussing. Lens elements move internally to focus, so lens length does not change, and front element does not rotate.

ED is used to designate the use of Extra-low Dispersion elements in the lens, which gives lower distortion.

IF-ED, etc means both IF and ED is used, etc. and other combos.

Something like that. The experts can correct me if I am wrong. ;p

Regards
CK
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,904
0
0
UK
Visit site
Well, ED is not to correct distortion, but chromatic abberations...

CK has the rest right.
 

Ian

Senior Member
Feb 20, 2002
2,532
0
0
59
Perth Australia
IF - Internal focusing - The lens length doesn't change as the lens is focused.

ED
Extra-low Dispersion glass. Nikon use a special glass developed in 1972 to control chromatic abberations in some lenses.

D
D series lenses are fitted with an additional 'chip' function that tells the camera how far the subject is from the lens. This information is used for flash balancing (3D matrix flash) and flash fill balancing (3D matrix fill flash) computations on some Nikon camera bodies.

Other terms you will encounter

AFn - Autofocus new - the second generation of AF lenses from Nikon, improved focusing speed for the most part and also modified lens cosmetics.

AFS Autofocus Silent Wave Technology - Inbuilt motors in the lens, similar to Canons USM and Sigma's HSM technologies. Far faster autofocusing speeds are possible with these lenses, however not all Nikon bodies can use AFS lenses.

CRC - Close Range Correction
A 'floating' lens element design where the element groups change postion independently as the lens is focused. Allows for superior lens performance.

NIC & SIC- Nikon Integrated Coating and Super Integrated Coating - Lens coatings that are applied to all lens to air surfaces in most Nikon lenses. These coatings improve light transmission, reduce flare and ghosting, improve color contrast and accuracy etc.
Most modern lenses are multi coated, earlier Nikkors often only had one layer. Coatings are tailored to the individual lens design.

ASP- Aspherical Lens Elements - Nikon pioneered the use of aspherical lens elements in photographic lenses back in 1968.
Aspherical elements are used mainly to reduce coma and other optical abberations.
 

ckiang

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
6,405
0
36
47
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
www.ckphoto.net
Originally posted by Ian
ASP- Aspherical Lens Elements - Nikon pioneered the use of aspherical lens elements in photographic lenses back in 1968.
Aspherical elements are used mainly to reduce coma and other optical abberations.
Sorry, OT but couldn't resist. Until now, ASP to me meant "Active Server Pages" and "Application Serivce Provider". ;p Oh dear, too much IT work. ;p

Regards
CK
 

Darren

ClubSNAP Admin
Staff member
Jan 16, 2002
8,626
32
48
Melbourne
basically, the more letters behind the focal length/aperture indicator, the more expensive the lens will be ;p

Anyone interested in a Nikkor 500f/2.8D-FO VR ED-IF AFS-II with 3 ASP elements and 3rd-generation NIC ?

BTW, I just made up another acronym - FO - for Fresnel Optics - in the event that Nikon brings out their equivalent of Canon's Diffractive Optics lens element.
 

Jed

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
3,904
0
0
UK
Visit site
Nikon doesn't need to come up with DO... it's already silently doing so while Canon are as usual milking the marketing for all it's worth. The AF-S II 400/2.8 is almost a full kilogram lighter than the Canon equivalent.

If you look at Canon's only DO offering properly, there really isn't much of a weight saving at all, although there may well be a size saving (I haven't seen one in real life so I can't tell).
 

Ian

Senior Member
Feb 20, 2002
2,532
0
0
59
Perth Australia
Originally posted by Jed
Nikon doesn't need to come up with DO... it's already silently doing so while Canon are as usual milking the marketing for all it's worth. The AF-S II 400/2.8 is almost a full kilogram lighter than the Canon equivalent.

If you look at Canon's only DO offering properly, there really isn't much of a weight saving at all, although there may well be a size saving (I haven't seen one in real life so I can't tell).

I have to concur and the Kwanon website shows an interesting 'version' of optical theory too regarding the DO. I notice that they have managed to completely exclude ED and ASP elements from their optical overview an occurence that a cynic might infer is because they don't want to scupper sales of their 400/2.8.

According to the Kwanon website:

EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM
Min foc dist: 11.5 feet
Size: 5.0x9.2 inches - (127mm x 233.68mm)
Weight: 4.3 lbs - 1.83 kg

Assuming this lens is a good performer then hats off to Canon for producing a reasonably fast light 400mm lens and credit where credit's due.

As we well know Nikon don't have an equivalent lens in their current lineup, however the old 400/3.5 AIS is still in production and lo and behold;

Nikkor IF-ED f/3.5 AIS
Min focus dist: 15 feet
Size: 134mm x 296mm (5.27 x 11.65 inches)
Weight: 2.8kg (6.5 pounds)

It should of course be realised that comparing these two lenses is somewhat unfair, the Nikon design is manual focus and housed in a full metal body. The design and construction is essentially the same as the first AI version released back in 1976. However for an old design that's 1/3 stop faster and not much larger one does have to wonder about advances in recent years.

Of course there's no equivalent to the Canon 400/4 DO in the Nikon AF lineup, however if Nikon were to produce a 400/4 AFS it would probably weigh a bit more than the 300/4 and an informed guess would be around 50% heavier based on the extra lens diameter (100mm vs 77mm ) and extra body size etc taking the weight up from 1.45 to around 2kg which is within 100 gr of the kwanon.

As the saying goes, the gulliable will rush to part with their money like lemmings rushing towards the cliff.... :devil:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.