Ken Rockwell Review of Nikon 60mm AFS and AF

Ken Rockwell has posted side by side reviews of the old and new 60mm lenses on his site here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/60mm-afd.htm

and here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/60mm-afs.htm

This mostly confirms what I believe and have heard from others namely that the AFS is sharper in the corners and is fast and reliable, better than the 105mm VR.

But he made some interesting points that I was suprised about:

1) The AFS version has slightly more distortion and falloff than the old version

2) The AFS version doesn't focus reliably on the D3 or D300

3) The AFS has even less working distance than the old version. This is no doubt due to the IF.

Bjørn Rørslett had a better review of this lens. http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html He stated that distortion was negligable. Light falloff isn't an issue for me as with macro highlighting the subject is a good thing and no one shoots macro at f2.8 anyway. Distortion isn't a big deal underwater either. For you crazies out there the smaller front element will also allow you to use the 3/4T diopters with this lens in the same way you can with the 105mm VR, in case you want to photograph the lint inside your port.

Less working distance may be a problem for those that would use this lens as a true macro lens, possibly making it impossible, its so close already. But I use this as a fish portrait lens and the 105mm for true macro so again this isn't an issue

AF performance IS the issue as getting even faster results on fluttering fish is important.

Appearently Bjørn Rørslett tested this on the D300 and D3 but didn't mention any AF irregularity. I own the AFS version and have had very snappy AF results on my D70. Much faster IMHO than with the older AF lens. But I don't have and haven't tried this on a D300 or D3. Can anyone confirm Ken's findings on a D3/D300?

Its weird that he says the 60mm lens is a bad macro lens and says you'll wind up with the 105mm and for that he says the older version is better. Wetpixel community seems pretty high on the newer 105mm and also pretty high on 60mm for macro photography as well. I'm wondering whether the newer 60mm is a bad idea for the d300 now, but also assume that a firmware upgrade will fix that focussing problem.

It's pretty much a good idea to disregard what Ken Rockwell says about almost anything. It may be true or it may be false, but if you know enough to tell when he's on target, you don't really need to read him anyway.

I used to enjoy reading his site, but I slowly woke up to the fact that much of the time, he really doesn't know what he's talking about. His review of the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8G put the nail in the coffin for me.

In some ways the cheaper 18-70 mm and 18-55 mm lenses do the same or more more and cost a lot less. This professional 17-55 just feels more solid and inspires more confidence and is a stop faster. The images aren't any different.

That's right. He thinks the image quality of the 18-55mm kit lens is the same as the 17-55mm f/2.8. I'm not a Nikon guy, but real reviewers show that the differences are pretty much what you'd expect: if you're shooting at f/4 or f/5.6, the corners of the f/2.8 are much sharper. Expensive glass is expensive for a reason, it's not some conspiracy to rip off photographers.

- Gus