Nikon 200/3.5 ED-IF AF

<p>Can this lens be safely mounted on my D800? I know the AF will not work, but will it mess up my D800 at all?<br>

I am thinking of trying one of these out as a landscape lens and thus the lack of AF does not bother me.</p>

<p>Also, anyone have any opinions on how sharp this lens might be compared to other 200mm or near 200mm lenses (like the 200/4 AIS, 180/2.8AF, 70-200AFS VRII, etc.)?</p>

<p>Thanks - John</p>

<p>Don't have either, but the D800 manual is very specific, stating:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The following can NOT be used with the D800:</em></p>

<ul>

<li><em>AF lenses for the F3AF (AF 80mm f/2.8, AF 200mm f/3.5 ED, AF Teleconverter TC-16)</em></li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>I would suspect the incompatibility is entirely electronic, as offhand I can think of no mechanical interference issues with either the AF 80/2.8 or AF 200/3.5 ED.</p>

<p>It should be fairly straight-forward to lift the mount and remove the CPU contact block and CPU.</p>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The following can NOT be used with the D800:</em></p>

<ul>

<li><em>AF lenses for the F3AF (AF 80mm f/2.8, AF 200mm f/3.5 ED, AF Teleconverter TC-16)</em></li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks - as usual Nikon does not say WHY it can't be used - will it not work, damage the camera, result in a thermonuclear reaction . . . .<em><br /></em></p>

<p>I was going to remove the CPU block or at least disable the motor contact pins (if I know which one). I wonder if the CPU will register with the D800 and tell it what focal length and max. aperture it is . . . .</p>

<p>Thanks - John</p>

<p>I imagine it's because Nikon messed around with the pin locations between the F3AF and the other AF cameras - it's the reason I had to relocate a pin in order to make my TC-16A work on my D700 (I suspect it'll work fine on my D800, although I've not tried it). I imagine it might be possible to make a similar modification to a lens - try googling for TC-16A modifications if you want to try it. I suspect it'll just confuse the electronics, although you might want to check you're not going to short out the battery. You might get away with taping the contacts down so nothing connects, so long as you're careful not to drop tape in your mirror box; the F3AF lenses are a bit of an historical curio, so if you'd prefer to avoid modifying them, that might be a solution.<br />

<br />

I've no idea how sharp it is, but given that reports on this forum have been that the 70-200 VR 2 is appreciably sharper than the 180mm prime, I'd not hold out great hopes for wide-open performance. It may well be fine by f/5.6 - my 80-200 has been pretty acceptable when I don't use it wide open in the few tests I've managed so far. Good luck, and if you get it working I'll be interested to know about the performance you find.</p>

The 200 f/4 AIS is a very

nice lens. I once did

some tests comparing it

to the 70-200 VR I and

found the 200 f/4 as good

(or nearly so) in the

center and of course far

better in the corners. I

haven't tested it against

the VR II but suspect the

new zoom is better. While

the 200 f/4 AIS is good

and small and cheap and

still useful to me, to get

the ultimate landscape

goodness from a D800

you'll probably need the

VR II or the 200 f/2.

<p>Ken -</p>

<p>I have the 200/2.8 AFS VRII and it's just OK at 200mm on my D800 - Meaning if I downsample to 12MP it looks pretty good, but if I crop a lot or need sharpness out to the corners it's just OK just as the Photozone test show - plenty sharp in the center and not so much in the borders/corners.</p>

<p>My hope is that since it's only f/3.5 at 200mm and it has 2 ED elements that it will have much better overall sharpness than either my 180/2.8AF or my 200/4. The 200/4 has even sharpness across the frame, but it's not close to being sharp at 36MP. The 180/2.8 AF has very decent sharpness in the center, but the edges and borders are not the greatest.</p>

<p>This would be my non-light weight landscape lens (though it weighs a little more than the 180/2.8AF which I find to be OK.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>You are definitely going to want to disable or remove the lens CPU. Note Bjorn Rorslett's <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html">comments</a> on the AF 80mm f/2.8, which shares the same CPU pin-out protocol as the AF 200mm f/3.5 ED-IF (bold text is my emphasis):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Nikon warn that it will not fit newer bodies, such as F5 and D1. The AF 80 mm lens however can be mounted to operate in MF mode on these cameras, <strong>but will drain the battery of the attached camera in a short while.</strong> Thus, in order for this lens to be used on D1 and F5, you must disable its CPU circuit, which is easily done with a screwdriver and a small knife..."</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I've talked with Bjorn a bit and he indicated (if I understood him correctly) that it would be an easy thing to replace the CPU.<br>

Shame it can't be modified to have the built-in AF work - I bet it could, but only Nikon would know how.</p>

<p>John: The autofocus <i>does</i> work on an adapted TC-16A (this being the primary reason to do it). Maybe you can't do the same trick with the lens, but I'd really check the TC-16A modification instructions. In a pre-D lens, as far as I know, all the electronics do is communicate maximum aperture information (and tell the camera there's an AF lens attached). I don't see a reason why the screwdriver shouldn't work.<br />

<br />

John: I'm surprised you're not happier with a 70-200 VR2 on the D800. I'm not expecting perfection (or as good as the 200 f/2), but at least down a stop or so I was under the impression Nikon thought it was "good enough". For what it's worth, one of the UK magazines (possibly Practical Photography, have to check) did a comparison of the fast moderate telephoto zooms this month, and claim the latest OS Sigma is (slightly) sharper than the Nikkor - though they also say it has worse handling. I'm not sure if Sigma have changed the design since the one Photozone tested, but there's a disparity in results if not. I've been using my 80-200 in the f/5.6-6.3 range at it's not been too bad (though I've not played with the raw files yet) - not that a small nudge of sharpening hurts - but as someone who's mostly been using wide apertures on my D700 for the last few years, it's scary how my D800E is suddenly showing up sensor dust as a result of my stopping down for sharpness.</p>

<p> Andrew -</p>

<p>TC16A - This TC is meant to be driven by the AF motor in the body - the 200/3.5 has an AF motor built into the lens, so the CPU modification would not be the same since they talk to the body in different ways for different reasons, but I hoped there would be something learned from the 16A that could be applied to the 200/3.5 - basically a way to disable the motor, but keep the CPU working to talk to the camera to tell it focal length, max aperture, etc.</p>

<p>Regarding the 70-200 VRII - I just don't want to carry that large or heavy of a lens in many situations and although the IQ at 200mm is fine (it just gets into very good territory on a D3x according to Photozone), I'd like better on my D800. The only 200mm lens that really gets to excellent at 24MP is the 200/2VR which is nowhere near what I want or need. f/4 max aperture is fine with me so I don't need f/2.8</p>

<p>Ah, thanks John. I realise, now I've had another look, that I was confusing the TC-16A and the TC-16S, with horribly misleading results. I apologise for the gibberish I posted, and hope it didn't inconvenience anyone. :-)<br />

<br />

I can vouch for the 200 f/2, both as a lens and as an exercise regime (costing only about as much as not using a gym membership for a few years). I presume the micro-Nikkor is out? (Though I believe I heard it's not so good at longer distances.)</p>

<p>Andrew -</p>

<p>No problem on the confusion.</p>

<p>The 200/4 Micro AIS is out I believe - I briefly tried one out and it seems just OK, though it was just one copy. Up close it looked to be excellent.</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback on the 200 f/4, John. For what it's worth, the Sigma macro 150 f/2.8 OS seems to have had very good reviews and has some happy customers on a D800 (it's on my wish list). If you want more length, I know there's a 180mm f/2.8 variant which might be worth comparing for quality against the 70-200 - it might have better LoCA handling, since the 150 does. It won't be cheap, but it probably won't be 200 f/2 money.</p>

<p>Well, with the helpful advice of Bjorn Rorslett I got my 200/3.5 and put it on my D800 w/o issues. It acts like it has a non-CPU lens mounted. Don't know about running the battery down as has been reported, but at least nothing obvious happened. Hopefully I'll get a few moments tomorrow to put it on the tripod and test it out.</p>