NIkkor-Q 200. Is it as bad?

Many people are more preoccupied for what professionals say about how

a lens performs than to take that lens go out and shot with it seen by

themselves the results.

Many people take the word from those pros like if it were a kind of

Bible.

Since I first time joined this forum I saw lot of references to well

known (of this forum) pross, whom rated subjectivily a wide number of

lenses. Lenses which in most cases are been paid for their papers or

agencies (not talking about freelances). Well, the pont is: Are you

amateur, enough rich to buy the best of the best. Probably not.

When I started in this business nearly 40 years ago I had to buy

equipment by myself and believe me, it was as much expensive as today,

in comparison.

In 1972 I bought a Nikkor-Q 200 mm f4 for my Fs. This lens fed me for

long time since. I'm visiting a site were it is rated 2.5 (the lowest

rate) and I believe must be truth. I don't doubt it, but a lot of

people who can buy this lens for less than 30$ today, avoid to buy it

becouse its poor performance and slowness.

Please, buy second cheap hand meanwhile you become rich, and enjoy

photography. The truth is out there.<div></div>

A touch of colour from B&W

Nikkor-Q 200 f4 1/250 Tri-X 400ASA<div></div>

Bjørn Rørslett is about the best source of independent lens reviews on the net. His opinion of your version of the 200/4 is demonstrated by the lack of details in your pictures. A couple of months ago I bought the AIS 200/4 for $103. It is very sharp even wide open. It's easy to see why Bjørn Rørslett rates it a 5 on film cameras. For another $70 it's worth it to have a truly excellent lens.

Now, if you said why buy a 180/2.8 when you can get a 200/4 for a fraction of the price and is smaller, lighter and comperable performance, that might be interesting.

Luis,<br>

<br>

Ive done very demanding test. I got years of experience. I

ran a photo processing business careering to mostly PR types. I

set standards high enough that I had customers sending their film

from the Ventura County when I lived in Los Angles County. A

couple used an in-house courier to send me their film about 55~60

miles.<br>

<br>

I reserve the right to disagree with anyone even Bj�rn R�rslett

but so far his priorities are quite the same as mine. He

occasionally notes that a lens gives its best performance one

stop down from where I do but I figure that means he is somewhat

more concerned with edge sharpness. He has never let me down. I

buy unknown lenses on the strength of his reconditions.<br>

<br>

The 200/4.0 Nikkor-Q has been known as a dog since the mid 70s

and early 80s. Ive never owned or used one but Im

not starting now. I own the stellar 180/2.8 ED and a few months

ago bought a 200/4.0 AI for stacking lenses. I cant tell

how much of the inferior quality you show here is from the lens

or the scanner but Im sorry Im not impressed.<br>

<br>

You can step up to a 200/4.0 K version very economically. Its

optically the same as the 200/4.0 AI and AIS. I see no reason for

owning a 200/4.0 Nikkor-Q except for the classic look, not for

use.<br>

<br>

The 180/2.8 ED is really not very expensive and superb wide open.

For a 200mm lens even the 200/4.0 AIS is dirt cheap as almost

everyone buys a zoom to cover this focal length today.<br>

<br>

Sorry, Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

Without getting techinical, I used the own this lens and used it with an old Nikomat. I never really like the 200 f4. Never could get a nice crisp image. Very soft, at least to me. Sold it on Ebay a few years ago for about $110. It was mint so I guess someone was willing to overpay for it. I was not going to argue. Looks like I got good money for it according to the posts above. Hope it was not you who bought it?

Anyway, every lens maker makes some duds. Luckily we have great websites now to alert the masses to them.

<i>I own the stellar 180/2.8 ED and a few months ago bought a 200/4.0 AI for stacking lenses.</i>

<p>David, if I might add a question here about the 200/f4 vs the 180/f2.8, I would appreciate your opinion on how these compare. I have been trying to choose between these two. <p>The 180 ED is, of course, praised by everyone, but it is heavier, costlier and most importantly for me might be unusable with a 50/1.8 reversed on it due to its 72mm filter size. Am I right in suspecting that it will produce unacceptable vignetting with this setup? <p> The 200/f4 AI and AI-S lenses seem to be cheaper and great for reversing the 50/1.8 because of its 52mm filter size. I would appreciate your opinion on the sharpness of this lens and the usability with a reversed lenses. How does it compare to the 180? Is it a reasonable compromise? Sharpness is my main concern here, but usabilty for high magnification with a reversed lens is a close second. <p>Thanks,<br>-A

Luis,

I love that shot of the little cab driver.

I do not qualify to comment on the Nikkor Q or the later version as I do not own either of them.

Anyone has a right on a website and rate any lenses as they wish.

If I go with Albert Smith's examples of a his 43-86 zoom nikkor shots, I would say this is a fabulous lens (do not own that either). In his hands, this lens seems to do extremely well not knowing the rating it gets in some places ;-)

I agree with your message, in principle and in general although I have no comments on the Nikkor Q or the later P. I had an used sample of the 100mm E series lens that was a real dog. Later, I learn from the posts here that not all samples are like that. I also own a very old sample of the famed 35mm f/1.4 lens which is just a paper weight. Sample variations do exist. A painful factor to consider.

As you also point out, such ratings have their own advantages in terms of street prices. No complaints there!

My taste in photography so far led to seek a large number of lenses for macro photography and UV photography.

The "ratings" have led many people to believe that only the compensating type 55mm f/3.5 micronikkor is the "sharpest". While I know that the Micronikkor P 55mm f/3.5 lens is just the same and one can scoop this far much less price than the compensating type.

If proper techniques are used, it is impossible to tell the difference in quality of images from a Tominon 35mm macro lens, Zeiss Luminar 40mm lens.

As I have posted earlier on this forum, among the sharpest lenses I won in the longer focal lengths (so far) is my hacked version of a Rodagon G 150mm f/5.6 lens mounted on a micronikkor 105mm f/4 focus mount. This lens is sharper than any micronikkor and does not give the unpleasant out focus rendition from any micronikkor lens. I did my own fabrication and evaluation.

It works great for me in terms of the results. Given the fact that it cost me fraction of the price of a new micro lens in a similar focal length does not hurt me either!

Regards,

Vivek.

P.S. I know the limitations of the scanner you work with. So, I am deterred by the comments about the "lack of clarity"in your postings.

The smaller, whole frame scans convey the reality.

P.S. Correction: My typing has gone astray today. I am not going to correct the whole text.

Roland points to a salient feature of the 200/4 Nikkor Q lens. It is quite obvious from the cab driver example you have posted, Luis.

If I have one of these lenses, I would use it under contrasty lighting conditions to get the best results. I suspect many of these "dogs"( 200/4 Nikkor Q, 43-86 zoom nikkor and the like) were made for use under bright sunlight.

I never said Bjorn is wrong. I said: "I'm visiting a site were it is rated 2.5 (the lowest rate) and I believe must be truth. I don't doubt it"

When I bought this lens I used to work for a local paper as a freelance and the neddful size for a print was less than 9 X 12 cms. So more than enough for the lens.

What I'm going to arrived is: Less paranoia about tests performances and more photos outside whith the gadget you have, till you can get better equipment. Obviously that's up to you :-)

Thanks for your responses.

Thanks to understand my poin of view. What to say about my scanner :-((

The children's picture was shot at full aperture and the previous shots too. As I said, for those days was sufficient to do positives from Tri-X (many times rated at 800 or 1600 ASA) and sending to the printing press.

OT. I sent you and email on Sunday night. Hope you got it.

Regards

Luis,

As a site offering free and mostly balanced reviews, Bjorn's evaluations are good.

Anyway, as you mention, it is all about the requirements of the day and if the tools are sufficient to meet your demands, they are as good as they can be. They will not mind the ratings as long as they are used properly!

Regards,

Vivek.

I realize this is an ancient thread, but I thought I'd weigh in on the 200 f4 Q. I got my AI'ed lens as a free alternative to a body cap when I bought my F2 three decades ago. I languished in a drawer until recently as I was never all that crazy about how it looked on film. A year or two back I decided to give it a try on my D750 and liked the results enough that I carry it in my small walk-around bag. Focused carefully it makes a marvelous candid portrait lens when shot wide open (lovely bokeh). I took a few shots of wife yesterday came out quite lovely. Even when stopped down a bit it does a far more than adequate job. Yesterday I shot some frames at f8 of a freighter several miles out in Lake Erie and even with the hazy of a hot day at 200% "pixel peeping" I can still see with precision all of the rigging on the ship and clearly read the name. How much better does a lens have to be not to be considered a "dog"?

I own (or have owned) some truly great glass (Zeiss, Leitz etc) over the years and I honestly don't see where the 200 f4 Q has anything to be deeply ashamed of.

Old thread, but I'll just say that I have a fluted ring Nikkor-Q with a factory AI conversion.

It's a lens that gets swapped in and out of my walk-around manual focus kit, and whether or not I carry it depends on if I'm wide biasing the kit, tele biasing it, or trying to cover as much range as possible(i.e. a typical kit where I'd carry it would be 24-50-105-200 or 35-85-105-200, but not my most-carried 20-35-50-105 kit). It's very much passable in that role-although I don't think anyone would disagree that it leaves something to be desired wide open, but it also looks a fair bit better by the time you get to f/8. Plus, it's light and takes 52mm filters. I've used it on my D800, although I find that what's a decent lens on film leaves a bit to be desired on digital.

Also in that range, I have an AF 180mm f/2.8(non-D) ED, 80-200 f/2.8D push-pull, and 70-200 f/2.8 VR I. I've fitted the prime with a meter coupling shoe so that it will meter on my favored F2SB(and any other camera I want to throw at it), while of course the 80-200 will work on any AI camera I have. There's no question that all of these are better than the 200mm f/4(although the 80-200 f/2.8 wide open at 200mm leaves something to be desired), and the 70-200 is easily the leader of the pack. With that said, all of them are considerably larger and heavier than the 200mm f/4, and I have to step up to carrying 77mm filters(and generally will use 52-77mm step rings, which are unwieldy, on my other lenses).

So, I guess for me, the 200mm f/4 Nikkor-Q has its place. I hadn't realized the AI-S version was better, though-that's worth a look...

10-years and more, but I miss the old snap-shot etc. lens reports.

I'm trying to catch up. I have a huge backlog.

Old thread, but I'll just say that I have a fluted ring Nikkor-Q with a factory AI conversion.

 

It's a lens that gets swapped in and out of my walk-around manual focus kit, and whether or not I carry it depends on if I'm wide biasing the kit, tele biasing it, or trying to cover as much range as possible(i.e. a typical kit where I'd carry it would be 24-50-105-200 or 35-85-105-200, but not my most-carried 20-35-50-105 kit). It's very much passable in that role-although I don't think anyone would disagree that it leaves something to be desired wide open, but it also looks a fair bit better by the time you get to f/8. Plus, it's light and takes 52mm filters. I've used it on my D800, although I find that what's a decent lens on film leaves a bit to be desired on digital.

 

Also in that range, I have an AF 180mm f/2.8(non-D) ED, 80-200 f/2.8D push-pull, and 70-200 f/2.8 VR I. I've fitted the prime with a meter coupling shoe so that it will meter on my favored F2SB(and any other camera I want to throw at it), while of course the 80-200 will work on any AI camera I have. There's no question that all of these are better than the 200mm f/4(although the 80-200 f/2.8 wide open at 200mm leaves something to be desired), and the 70-200 is easily the leader of the pack. With that said, all of them are considerably larger and heavier than the 200mm f/4, and I have to step up to carrying 77mm filters(and generally will use 52-77mm step rings, which are unwieldy, on my other lenses).

 

So, I guess for me, the 200mm f/4 Nikkor-Q has its place. I hadn't realized the AI-S version was better, though-that's worth a look...

Pretty much my take on the lens and how I use it as well. I have a little Lowepro Adventura bag and if I have the 24-85 VR on the 750 body, the hood in one little side compartment I can just fit the 200 Q in the other if I put the bigger base end down. It makes for a light carry and covers most of what I might want to do quite well. The odd thing is that I never really found a used for the 200Q until I started full-frame digital. Now it gets a lot of use.

If I'm shooting one of my film Nikons (F2, FE, F4) it is a whole 'nother game, mind you. Back in my strictly film days I had (have) a Tamron 70-210 f3.5 SP that did a lovely job and still does, but it is a lot longer and heavier to cart around.

I do a fair amount of professional head-shot portrait work and awhile ago I did a series with one of my more patient clients using various lenses I had available. Odd as it might seem, their preference and mine was the 200 f4 shot wide open. Hmmm...

In the end it is "horses for courses" and focus accuracy counts for more than the lens ofttimes.

Adding to this old thread, I will add my bit. I have a very old (bayonet end threaded together, not screwed on) 200/Q, which I got for ten bucks out of a junk bin with some loose screws and a nasty looking but workable AI conversion, (done apparently by trimming the ring while still attached with a Dremel tool or the like). It may not be the very sharpest lens ever made, but it is reasonably sharp, and for reasons not entirely understood, it is pretty easy to focus well even on a DX camera, and it's not that hard to hand hold. And for whatever reason, the color rendition and bokeh just seem luscious. The lack of close focus is a nuisance, and for most purposes I don't use it much, but what I've found it excels at is bug-chasing with outrageously long extensions. Again, for reasons not entirely understood, it remains relatively bright and easy to focus and hold with a full 68 mm. set of extension rings on it. Used that way, it's just about right for dragonflies and damselflies, which are a little shy if you get too close.

I don't know of any objective reason for this lens being so good, but if you put it on a camera and head down to the pond, it just is.

Adding to this old thread, I will add my bit. I have a very old (bayonet end threaded together, not screwed on) 200/Q, which I got for ten bucks out of a junk bin with some loose screws and a nasty looking but workable AI conversion, (done apparently by trimming the ring while still attached with a Dremel tool or the like). It may not be the very sharpest lens ever made, but it is reasonably sharp, and for reasons not entirely understood, it is pretty easy to focus well even on a DX camera, and it's not that hard to hand hold. And for whatever reason, the color rendition and bokeh just seem luscious. The lack of close focus is a nuisance, and for most purposes I don't use it much, but what I've found it excels at is bug-chasing with outrageously long extensions. Again, for reasons not entirely understood, it remains relatively bright and easy to focus and hold with a full 68 mm. set of extension rings on it. Used that way, it's just about right for dragonflies and damselflies, which are a little shy if you get too close.

 

I don't know of any objective reason for this lens being so good, but if you put it on a camera and head down to the pond, it just is.

Never question success! As I mentioned, I never particularly liked or used the lens on film, but on my D750 it just shines.

Fiddlefry, thank you for reviving this thread.

I have the 200mm f/4 Q which I bought in 1971 at the Canadian PX (U.S. service member could use the Canadian PX and the Canadians could use the U.S. PX) for use on my Nikon FTn. I was not impressed with the lens. It was difficult to focus with the standard FTn split image screen. When I purchased my F100, I sent my four manual focus lenses to John White for AI conversion. I almost did not send the 200 f/4 Q, but John recommended I have it converted and I did. I was not the greatest on the F100, so I retired it from my camera bag to a bureau drawer. There it languished for almost 15 years - until I read your post about using it on the D750. I have a D750, so ...

Early yesterday evening, the sun was still up, I had some free time. I mounted the 200mm on my D750 and went in search of a target, er, I mean subject. The only subject around was the cat. An active cat coupled with a manual focus lens that was a bit stiff due in non-use is not a great combination for a lens test. Finally the cat settled down, when he found there was no food to be had. I focused carefully and clicked one off. When I looked at it, it was blurry, worse than I remembered from the F100. So I tried a few more. They were better but nothing to write home about. Then I noticed the EXIF data. Shooting a 200mm lens hand held at 1/50 or even 1/100 of a second is NOT optimal. I had been so preoccupied with getting the focus correct, I had forgotten the basics. I punched the ISO up to 4000 and changed the aperture to f/8; the shutter speed went to 1/200 sec. The resulting image is attached. By the way the images at 1/50 and 1/100 are acceptable at normal size, but you can see the motion blur at 1:1.

This lens is going back in the camera bag. The lens data is entered in the non-CPU data of the D750.

Top Image 1/200 sec f/8; middle image 1/100 sec f/4; bottom image 1/50 sec f/4

[ATTACH=full]1301916[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1301917[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1301918[/ATTACH] Fiddlefry, thank you for reviving this thread.

 

I have the 200mm f/4 Q which I bought in 1971 at the Canadian PX (U.S. service member could use the Canadian PX and the Canadians could use the U.S. PX) for use on my Nikon FTn. I was not impressed with the lens. It was difficult to focus with the standard FTn split image screen. When I purchased my F100, I sent my four manual focus lenses to John White for AI conversion. I almost did not send the 200 f/4 Q, but John recommended I have it converted and I did. I was not the greatest on the F100, so I retired it from my camera bag to a bureau drawer. There it languished for almost 15 years - until I read your post about using it on the D750. I have a D750, so ...

 

Early yesterday evening, the sun was still up, I had some free time. I mounted the 200mm on my D750 and went in search of a target, er, I mean subject. The only subject around was the cat. An active cat coupled with a manual focus lens that was a bit stiff due in non-use is not a great combination for a lens test. Finally the cat settled down, when he found there was no food to be had. I focused carefully and clicked one off. When I looked at it, it was blurry, worse than I remembered from the F100. So I tried a few more. They were better but nothing to write home about. Then I noticed the EXIF data. Shooting a 200mm lens hand held at 1/50 or even 1/100 of a second is NOT optimal. I had been so preoccupied with getting the focus correct, I had forgotten the basics. I punched the ISO up to 4000 and changed the aperture to f/8; the shutter speed went to 1/200 sec. The resulting image is attached. By the way the images at 1/50 and 1/100 are acceptable at normal size, but you can see the motion blur at 1:1.

 

This lens is going back in the camera bag. The lens data is entered in the non-CPU data of the D750.

 

Top Image 1/200 sec f/8; middle image 1/100 sec f/4; bottom image 1/50 sec f/4

Same experience as mine. I've no idea why the lens mates so well with the D750, but it just seems to. Candid of my dear lady wife taken at a Canada Day party earlier this week. 1/125th @ f4. Probably should have bumped up the ISO a bit, but by then the shot would have been gone. Focus on mine is creamy smooth...

DSC_4874 by fiddlefye, on Flickr