chinners

I am the owner of a number of Nikon lenses the majority of which have been superseded a number of times with newer models. In many instances the newer models offer more features, V.R., better V.R. etc. but does the image quality also improve with the newer lenses
Many Thanks

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Use a review site such as Ken Rockwell, particularly for Nikon lenses. His reviews are in-depth and tend to include an 'is it worth it' consideration, particularly for older vs newer lens designs of the same lens.

In general, the newer lenses can range for minimal to substantial in the visual differences of the resulting image quality / sharpness. For the top-line professional-grade equipment, Nikon, Canon, etc, have little area to further improve on the image quality for lenses on the SLR / DSLR mounts. Rather, they can improve the VR/IS performance, the AF performance, and the materials that create the lens, making the larger and heavier lenses both smaller and lighter with advanced materials. So, the image quality may not change, but your ability to create a better image is improved.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

In some cases yes and some cases no. Nikon has made excellent glass since the 60's. Most older manual focus lenses were also built with heavy duty metal parts that outlast newer plastic based lenses. But the most important feature in new lenses is auto focus and digital imaging/viewing. If I were to closely examine every old negative I shot from film-days, I'm sure I would find a much higher percentage of soft pictures compared to my digital frames today. Nowadays we view every image on a large screen and then magnify to 400% to confirm critical sharpness. Test your lenses against a new example. My guess is they will hold up nicely for the most part. And if you are shooting mostly static scenes you'll be fine without the new. But for shooting moving objects, you'll need to upgrade.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

It depends on which lens you’re talking about. ED lenses will always have better image quality than their older non-ED versions. Single-coated non-Ai lenses are generally inferior to their NIC counterparts. When Ai/AiS lenses were offered as AF versions, the optical formula didn’t always change. For the most part mechanical quality took a hit, though. (I’m biased - I have little use for autofocus).
If you list some of the older lenses you have, someone should help answer your question. (Though I like Nikon cameras, I prefer Kilfitt. Leica R, Schneider and Zeiss lenses).

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

You don’t specify what you mean by “older” lens. Before computer-aided-design, the center of lenses was quite sharp, but the corners weren’t.

sloscheider Loc: Minnesota

I've use an 80-200 2.8 nikon for a good number of years and finally purchased not a new Nikon but a new Tamron 70-210 2.8 and WOW! I tripled the number of usable image just from more accurate focus results. I don't know that image quality is any better with in focus images but the upgrade was well worth it!

The Tamron tripod shoe sucks though...

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I have been re-using some of my 1940's/50's Leica lenses , with an adapter , on a Sony digital body. Sharpness etc. is as good as current Nikon/Sigma lenses I have.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Image quality has a lot to do with the skill and knowledge of the photographer.
A professional golfer with old, old, clubs can outscore most of us with the best equipment.
Same goes for many professions, photography being one of those.

uhaas2009

You can’t say it like that, it belongs how light enter your subject, Composition, camera body and what you are looking for.......some lenses are good and some are not worth it-it doesn’t matter if old or new. Lenses are learning experience and you need to know your lenses.
Check ken Rockwell.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Photographer technique being equal, and as a general rule - YES - newer lenses will be have better IQ in most respects - most especially focus speed and accuracy. Native Lens designs for the new mirrorless lens mounts will be especially optically better !
.

ksmmike

I agree with everyone that it depends on the individual lens and the person behind the camera. I will say however that some of the older Nikon manual focus lenses will without question take as good or maybe even a better image than newer lenses. However, manual focus vs auto is a game changer for many people.

One older Nikon in particular is the 135mm F 2.8 and the F 3.5. That's an incredible lens and can be found for around $100. I would put that up against about any 135 lens or range of lens on the market today. The old classic 105 F 2.5 is still a wonderful lens but since most of my portraits are of kids, I had to go the 85mm 1.8 auto focus lens for more keepers. Another mentioned the 80-200 F2.8 lens. I still use that lens but it is a very slow autofocus compared to todays lenses. However the quality of the image is just as good. I'll never sell that lens.

Just my 2 cents worth.
Mike

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Many of the older lenses are optically good.. Improvements in AF, the addition of VR and improved lens coatings/ lens compositions will give newer lenses an edge. That said, advances in editing software can negate some of those advances...

machia Loc: NJ

In the case of Minolta, their Rokkor manual lenses including the glass were superior to their AF lenses. The older lenses were so good that they built lenses with Minolta glass for Leica.
i.e.: My f1.2 58mm and f1.7 85mm Rokkor lenses are two optically excellent
lenses that would cost a small fortune in a newer AF model today with the same optical performance.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

You have more than enough good answers here for your question. I am going to add my comments for what they are worth.

"Image quality has a lot to do with the skill and knowledge of the photographer." Yes, it is true. A professional lens in the hands of an inexperienced photographer is totally useless. It is also true that images from a lens with ED are better than those from a lens without it but with a caveat, it applies mainly to tele lenses. Single coated Nikon lenses from the past are of excellent quality in my humble opinion. They tend to be low in contrast which is easily fixed with an editor. These lenses are not as good as modern lenses with multicoating when it comes to flare.
I have an old Nikon 50 mm f1.4 S lens from the early 70's which is my favorite when it comes to using that focal length. It has given me and continues to give excellent and sharp images. I can say the same of the 105 mm f2.5 and mine is a 1967 copy. I am sure that others have similar lenses and are very happy with them. My 80-200 f4.5 is as sharp as any of the other lenses I have. My copy is from 1974.

To make it short, if you have those old lenses use them. They are all manual focus lenses but isn't that what photographers have done for over a century?

FTn

The sharpest new lenses have rear elements where the rear surface is flat. The designers do this because light needs to strike the pixels on the sensor head on or as close to head on as possible. The more off center the more loss of sharpness. You don't want the light striking the pixel at more than 15 degrees off axis. If you look at older film lenses you'll see that rear elements are more likely to be convex.

Digital sensors have the ability to produce sharper images than film. For this reason any issues that were inherent in lenses that were designed prior to computer designed lenses become far more apparent when shooting digital. So your old Nikkor AI lenses will fit on new Nikon DSLR cameras but you might not get the sharpest images. You'll have to test and see for yourself.

There is a much better explaination of this in Thom Hogan's book Complete Guide to the Nikon D850. It's a download and a great read if you own a D850 or are thinking about buying one.

- FTn