Loving 180mm

<p>I recently had the good fortune of picking up a second-hand AF 180mm for no money. (so maybe my expectations are lowered) I have to say I just love this lens. I never thought I would bond with a telephoto prime. For example, I have not used my manual 105mm very much (I shoot DX). But this 180mm is a real pleasure to shoot with. Very nice slender lens barrel makes handling a joy. The quality seems very impressive also. Images have a nice pop, and I perceive a significant quality improvement versus my 70-300VR. The fixed focal length makes me think more about my framing and my position relative to the subject. Sure I would not give up my 70-300 zoom, which is more flexible. But the 180mm is so rewarding, it makes me <em>want</em> to work harder. Anybody else like this lens?</p>

<p>Yes, a lot. Mine is a bit worn, the AF mechanism doesn't always engage properly, but it was cheap, so it's hard to complain. Optically, I find it a total gem, weight and size are just about fine.<br>

I did let my AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 go for it (after a long while of doubting it); for what I tend to do, the flexibility isn't the most important, and the combination of a 105 f/2.5 and this lens produces results I like better. It's far from my most used lens, but everytime I use it it manages to put a smile on for the results it can deliver.</p>

<p>Love the 180, been using it for head and shoulder portraits since back in the F4s days with film. Works equally as well with FX, not tried it on a DX camera. One of Nikon's unsung heroes.</p>

<blockquote>One of Nikon's unsung heroes.</blockquote>

 

<p>I thought it was fairly well-sung, actually! People have always said good things about this lens. What put me off owning one is reports that it's not very sharp by the standards of a modern zoom such as the 70-200 VR 2. Checking photozone again, that may have been a bit harsh - it's not <i>that</i> far behind - but it does seem to have a <i>lot</i> of LoCA. Interesting to hear it getting a shout out; I think I'll stick to my 150mm Sigma macro - although the 180mm version is apparently huge enough that I can see why people might prefer the Nikkor. Plus it's cheaper, of course!</p>

<p>I have the current 180 f2.8 and like it for portraits and when I know I will need to be near 200 for pictures.</p>

<p>Andrew, I have read up on this lens recently and I think the people who sing about the lens do give it praise. But maybe Tim is saying the lens is not as popular as it might be. I really like the OOF rendering.</p><div></div>

<p>Andrew, it does have a fair share of CA, but on digital it cleans up easily; on film... well, I shoot mostly B&W, so can't tell.<br>

In comparison to modern zooms, a lot of people will probably pick the newer lenses because they tend to have more contrast and more saturation. So, more punchy images, with more presence by default. Personally, I prefer the softer rendering of the older lenses, especially with portraits, as Chip shows. I also like it much for portraits, even though I do not <a href="/photo/17994340">many</a> <a href="/photo/17994338">of</a> <a href="/photo/17994332">those</a>. In terms of sharpness, it might be the newer lenses perform better, but well, there is more to a lens than its resolution.</p>

 

<p>I haw the 180/2.8 AI-S version. It is a real all metal lens including a very convenient telescopic hood, and the images are sharp, colorful and contrasty. It is better then my new 70-200/4 VR, which I almost, never using. If I need a 200mm rage, I would rather use one my several prime 200mm f/4. Also a razor sharp lens, all the way back to the non AI Nikkor-Q and Q.C. and the small 200/4 AI-S. For the 105mm f/2.5 I use the old Nikkor-P. All of them factory AI converted. They are all very sharp lenses. I hate plastic.</p>

I also have the AiS version, which is one of my favourite lenses.

<p>And Voigtlander make a very nice 180/f4 too in Nikon mount, and it has very minimal CA. Manual focus and a bit heavy (metal!), but also a gem.</p>

<p>John, I have heard about the legendary Lanthar and it sounds pretty amazing.</p>

<p>Wouter: I'm surprised at that. The aberration I'm concerned about is longitudinal (axial/spherochromatism) rather than lateral (radial); the later is relatively trivial to fix by per-channel image scaling, but the longitudinal behaviour depends on the distance of the subject, so pretty much all fixes just rely on removing anything that looks like it might be a colour fringe (and you hope it wasn't actually in the scene). It's true that Photoshop et al. do a half decent job with this, but since they failed to fix my 135 DC images, I've been wary of lenses with more than a little LoCA. These designs do tend to make the bokeh look nicer, though - which is why the DC lenses deliberately include it. I prefer the approach used on the Sony 135mm STF and the Fuji 56mm APD. That said, the 200 f/2 VR seems to manage good bokeh without any LoCA problems, but it has a few... disadvantages compared with the 180mm. :-)<br />

<br />

I do generally prioritise other things over resolution, but I've always felt that, for portraits, I'd rather reduce acutance than try to add it. It's easier to blur the skin than to sharpen the eyelashes, IMO. Sharpening also tends to make bokeh look worse, which reduces some of the benefit of the lens.<br />

<br />

None of which dismisses this lens (especially since I don't have personal experience of it) - for size and price, it's very appealing. I've just been bitten by "reviews" that claimed lenses were very well-behaved (notably of the 135 DC and the 150-500 Sigma) that should have had a few caveats!</p>

Just a small side step from the main subject: how is that Sigma 150-500 mm?

<p>Andrew, my knowledge on optics (scientifically) sure has its limits, and I cannot always distinguish well between the various types of CA (or cannot bother to find out); so apart from what I see happening in CaptureOne, I dare not say much. But well, I import the files, see the purple/cyan outlines, check the settings for de-fringing, and things clean up to a level I find acceptable. And that's the biggest catch probably: I'm not a perfectionist in these things <em>at all</em>, as the overall end image for me hardly ever falls with a bit of CA. So, my level of acceptable could well be unacceptable - it's certainly no gold standard.</p>

<p>I do agree that loosing sharpness is easier than trying to add that later on, but well, the 180mm f/2.8 is sharp, plenty. The thing is: not all sharpness is alike, in my view. I cannot explain well (that lack of optics knowledge shining through), but many of the modern lenses with superior test results to me tend to deliver images that look harsh, too pumped up, too much almost having contrast as an effect, rather than a natural effect of luminosity differences. Put side-to-side magnified with older, more mute-looking, lenses, there isn't actually that much more detail, but the apparent sharpness is more - by virtue of contrast and saturation.<br>

But since I work a lot in B&W, this extra contrast and saturation doesn't work out so well, as it disrupts the tonality in the midtones much more than I like. The older lenses are less punchy maybe, less obviously-sharp, but they do give me images of which the tonality is easier to control and richer. The 180mm fits in there, and I find it works miracles with skin colours, subtle as it should be. Taming the contrast and saturation I find harder to do than add a little afterwards, and the clinical precision look of modern lenses just doesn't tick the right boxes for me. In the end, it is about how lenses render an image, and I choose them based on that alone. I'll happily buy the lens with lesser testresults and a worse MTF chart if I think the pictorial results are more pleasing to my eye. Yes, I'd still choose the AiS 35mm f/1.4 over a Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4. Seriously.</p>

<p>Long story short:probably my taste is quite far from the middle of the scale on this; in fact I should admit I'm rather rubbish for lens advice, since my priorities are there where most people do not have them. Sorry it took a few years to frankly admit it, but I guess most of you already realised ages ago.<br>

Nonetheless, I love the 180mm f/2.8; it's not perfect, but that's perfectly fine.</p>

<blockquote>Just a small side step from the main subject: how is that Sigma 150-500 mm?</blockquote>

 

<p>At the shorter end, absolutely fine - if you don't mind a 1.8kg 150mm f/5. At 500mm, awful; I didn't do a thorough check, but I think I've heard others report that it's not bad until somewhere between 300mm and 400mm. I got images that were acceptable to me at 500mm if I was at f/11, on a D700 - assuming I had enough light to be shooting a 500mm at f/11. I checked manually on a tripod with live view, and the problem wasn't the OS system, my hand tremor, or focus issues. It also doesn't focus very close at all. On the basis that f/11 was going to be losing resolution to diffraction even if it was otherwise acceptable, I got rid of it along with my 135 DC a while ago. I have a 500 f/4 AI-P which is somewhat better, although manual focus is pain (as is carrying a tripod and a 393 with it) and it doesn't play as well with a TC-16A as I'd hoped. I still dream of a 400 f/2.8, although frankly a new 80-400 or a 150-600 might be sufficient - I'm just nervous that the initial good reviews might eventually turn bad, as they did for the 150-500 - though KR still gives it five, er, cameras optically (which says a lot). Not that I can afford any of these lenses just now!<br />

<br />

On the plus side, with the hood reversed, the 150-500 is particularly obscene if you zoom it suggestively. I did quite like being able to zoom as a way of not losing the subject. I didn't enjoy discovering how much an 86mm polariser costs. I got the 150-500 as one of my first Nikon lenses (having come from a crop sensor Canon with a heavily-used 70-300); the range was particularly good at Wimbledon (from each end of the court), I just wish it was sharper. Oh, and it also caused some comical droop in my Manfrotto Modo, but that'll teach me to stick 3kg on top of a travel tripod. (The 500 f/4 is what made me upgrade my 055CXPro3 to RRS legs...)<br />

<br />

Wouter: To each our own, and I'm particularly sensitive to LoCA because I've had trouble removing it, and I have an annoying habit of capturing sharp black/white edges that cross the focal plane. :-) I thoroughly recommend that everyone else forget I said anything, or you'll all be down the price of a 200 f/2 like I was. Misery loves company, but still. And I appreciate the "glow" of an older lens - I'd just rather fake it in software so I can turn it off!</p>

<p>I have used my 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS for over 20 years and and am still in love with it. It is my go-to lens for singles portraiture outdoors.</p>

Thanks a lot for the review, Andrew.<br>I am looking for a cheapish long focal length lens as the lazy option (i.e. a zoom - fewer lenses to carry, fewer lens changes. Though bigger). The Sigma looked like being an option.<br>I don't really mind the weight. And it doesn't have to be top notch. But still, at least half decent performance is a must. If it doesn't deliver even that beyond 300 mm, there's no point.

<p>I hear you Scott. Here's one from 25 years ago with my old 180mm f/2.8 ED. Oh what are we to do with these old lenses? And this was through 2" thick glass! Thankfully, otherwise I would have been Kitty lunch.</p><div></div>