Nikon 135mm f/2.8 AI-s and Nikon 200mm f/4 AI.

I picked up the 135mm today and I am real pleased with this lens, Real surprised just how good it is, So I have my eye on a 200mm, can I expect it also to be as pleased with it?

It's a good enough lens, had one for many years - once I got hold of a 180 2.8 I really never used the 200 again and gave it to a friend. I still use the 180 (and 135) on my digital cameras with excellent results. Also depends on your usage, of course!

I think the 180 2.8 is a sleeper lens too. A bit prone to CA, but overall great sharp performer.

If you like the 135/2.8 rendering, you will like the 200/4 Ai. These and the Planar formula 105/2.5 and the 85/2 Ai are basically "variations on an optical theme".

 

I also have a Factory Ai'd Nikkor-P 180/2.8. Sharp lens, but much heavier than the 200/4.

I previously owned the 200 f/4, but I've had a lust for the 180mm f/2.8 for years. About a year ago, I found a 180 AIs at a used show, and grabbed as fast as I could get out the cash. The focusing ring was a bit soft, but I love it. Both lenses are very sharp, but I like the extra stop.

 

In the 70's, and until the advent of AF, the 180 was the go to lens for photogs after the 24mm f/2.8, and the 105mm f2.5.

I have had the 200mm f4 and used it on film. I had a really nice AIS version. With film, I was limited to an ISO of 100. So to me, it was a lens that I would use on a tripod. If you are using it on a DSLR with adjustable high performing ISO s then it should be OK - the f4 max aperture would not be too limiting. I sold mine when I got an AIS 180mm 2.8. Now that is a damn fine lens by any standard. But the f4 200mm is perfectly good - sample variation apart. Some complain that the it is a bit dark to focus with and I would agree - it is a bit of a fine weather lens in that regard - not a low light lens.

I had a 200 f4 AIS but found the contrast low for my taste (contrary to some reviews). Maybe it was my copy, but sharpness was not an issue. I got rid of it for the 180 2.8 ED manual focus. That is a very nice lens, but unfortunately too heavy for long distance walking.

Found a few shots with the Df, at F5.6:

 

Second shot is wide-open, 1/60th hand-held, ISO3200- in the Barn.

 

Wide-Open, minimum focus on the Df.

My old 135, non-Ai, converted....the blades stuck wide open a long time ago. I bought 2 (perfect) 135's and both were full of cobweb fungus. I ended up buying a Series 1, 135/2.3. I would love to play with a DC 135/2, but it's a bit out of my tax bracket.

 

I have the old 200/4 in my Nikon F sack. It's too pretty to Ai the darned thing.

 

 

mark4583|1,

(It looks like you are playing my Gretsch.)

I feel the same way about the Nikkor-Q 20cm F4". It's the "1957 Chevy Sparkly Chrome" on it. My Nikkor-QC 200/4- I would convert with the proper Ai kit.

Have my 200/4.0 AI on D800 with me a couple of days. Thrown loosely in a bag, it makes for a compact and sturdy package. But I do find focusing difficult and am not extremely excited about its sharpness (:(never 'tack sharp, and a bit of CA).. And only focuses beyond 2 meters distance..:eek: Much more pleased with the 105/2.8 AIS ('micro') .. and the 70-200/4.0 AFS, for that matter! Will keep it for macro purposes though! (attach reversed lens in front, etcetera).

Since it's semi-topical, I thought I'd mention that William Optics (who mostly do telescopes) are currently pushing their new four-element (with "synthetic fluorite") petzval 250mm f/4.9, including its use as a photography lens, claiming "world's sharpest" (...250mm lens, from I suspect a limited sample size). DPReview have picked up the story. I'm not 100% sold on the sample images, but if you're after something of these approximate specs (200 f/4-ish), that's a moderately expensive modern alternative. If you like manual focus and not being able to alter the aperture, obviously!

My old 135, non-Ai, converted....the blades stuck wide open a long time ago. I bought 2 (perfect) 135's and both were full of cobweb fungus. I ended up buying a Series 1, 135/2.3. I would love to play with a DC 135/2, but it's a bit out of my tax bracket.

 

I have the old 200/4 in my Nikon F sack. It's too pretty to Ai the darned thing.

 

 

mark4583|1,

(It looks like you are playing my Gretsch.)

5420 and for a Korean made guitar they are very nice and well worth the $$$, wouldn't mind having a country gentlemen though.

Since it's semi-topical, I thought I'd mention that William Optics (who mostly do telescopes) are currently pushing their new four-element (with "synthetic fluorite") petzval 250mm f/4.9, including its use as a photography lens, claiming "world's sharpest" (...250mm lens, from I suspect a limited sample size). DPReview have picked up the story. I'm not 100% sold on the sample images, but if you're after something of these approximate specs (200 f/4-ish), that's a moderately expensive modern alternative. If you like manual focus and not being able to alter the aperture, obviously!

 

I'll bet it is sharper than my Nikkor-Q 25cm F4...I use it with an N-F Tube. Big, Heavy and HEAVY. But it is 65 years old and I found it for $99 with the tube in an antique shop.

 

I also have the 200 F4,AFD-Micro-Nikkor-ED (M-O-U-S-E), which is very sharp and much lighter than the 25cm F4. I'll have to do a comparison between it and the 200/4 Ai.

The AIS 200/4 is very much like a longer version of the AIS 135/2.8, in build, handling and rendition. I have both but tend to use the 135 much more. The 135 is a stop faster and the shorter focal length means it is much easier to use for hand-held shooting. Even if the shutter speed is fast enough to freeze camera shake, it's harder to hold the 200 steady enough to frame accurately, unless shooting from a tripod or using some other support. The 135/2.8 is also much more compact which is nice. An alternative is the series-E 75-150/3.5. Physically it is the same size as the 200/4, but shares many of the advantages of the 135 - shorter focal length and faster aperture makes it easier to use. It also focuses usefully close, and of course, it zooms. The zoom range is small, but I find it covers a very useful range.

with "synthetic fluorite"

..which is what precisely?

 

Good for UV?

(Of "synthetic fluorite"...)

 

..which is what precisely?

 

Good for UV?

 

I doubt it was high on the priority list for a telescope; even if it has a fluorite element, I doubt they all are. The product blurb suggests this is something exotic, whereas I doubt it's more exotic than the existing selection of glass variants used by camera manufacturers. Canon's fluorite is grown, and therefore arguably "synthetic" (if it were mined it would probably be impure and pretty colours). I don't know whether various low-dispersion glass variants (ED, SLD, etc.) would be seen as "synthetic fluorite" in some circles.

 

Do you have to worry more about pointing fluorite telescope lenses at the sun (given the fuss about Canon's lenses being white to avoid heat problems)? I guess any telescope pointing at the sun tends to be front-filtered anyway, if everyone knows what's good for them. (And also the finder scope, if you don't like burn marks on your shoulders.)

Great lens, I had the f3.5 version and was always pleased. Light weight and sharp. That said I picked up a Ziess Marko-Planar 100mm f2. That on my d850 is magical.

I bought the 200 mm f/4 AiS new when I was a teenager, rather a long time ago! I've had it ever since, but rarely use it. IMO, it just doesn't have the pop of some other lenses. The 135 is probably a better choice.