Nikkor 70-210mm f/4-5.6 non "D" - AIS - any good?

[doghouse_reilly]

Can anybody give a feedback on the Nikkor 70-210 4-5.6 AIS lens? IS

it good? is it better than the 70-300G? What is the diferrence

between it and the D version? Is it good for a F75 body?

 

Thank you All

[jim_gifford]

It is not clear whether you mean the autofocus (but not AF-D) version, or the manual focus AIS version which was a Nikon Series E lens.

 

I had the Series E for 10 years or so and it was a fine lens. No complaints.

 

The D version will transfer focus distance information to camera bodies that can use that info (and your N75 can use it) for 3D matrix flash exposure and 3D matrix metering.

 

The autofocus 70-210 lenses would be fine for an F75.

 

The Series E manual focus lens would take fine pictures on an N75 but the camera would not meter through it.

 

I cannot compare it to the 70-300G, sorry. I do have the 70-300 AF-D lens, and I find it to be just as nice as the 70-210 at equivalent focal lengths... with the advantage of lighter weight, less bulk and the extra "reach" out beyond 210mm toward 300mm. Some people who have used the 70-300G praise it as a $100 wonder, and others say pictures from the 70-300G are too soft. I don't know if that means there is a lot of variation from one sample of the lens to the next. It might say more about sample variation in photographers than sample variation in optics.

 

Be well,

[doghouse_reilly]

Its the AF version.

[jim_helleck1]

I have the 70-210/4.0 AF micro (non "D") constant aperture and I really like this lense. The constant aperture is the big draw for me. It's a much smaller and cheaper lens than the 2.8 constant. For me it's a perfect match for my F4 and very hand holdable in less than ideal lighting conditions. Give it some thought over the variable aperture model.

[liftik]

check out this link for extensive answer: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/

7021056.htm

[eric_quincy]

I heard the 70-210 F4 has focus problem, any experience?

 

I have a D version F4-5.6, once I noticed it didn't focus

correctly, but after repeat half-pressing the shutter button

for a few times, it focused. not sure if it is only my lens

or a common problem.

[doghouse_reilly]

I would dearly appreciate if someone used this speciphic lens and can recommend it.

[rschilli]

Hello,

 

I own and use this lens. I like it. It is sharp and has good contrast. Well I can't compare to the G or the much likes 80-200/2.8, but at least with respect to the latter, you should keep in mind this pice costs about fife times (eBay) as much and weights a ton.

I can thus recomend it, particularly if you like to travel.

 

Richard

[tony bell]

I have that lens and I like it very much, mainly for the portability. But it is very sharp and takes good photos. If anything, the autofocus is rather slow by today's standards. I won't part with mine.

[manolis1]

I bought that lens used for $150.00.

The lens is sharp from 70mm to 150mm. At the zoom end (200mm) the photos you get are soft. Lens construction is Great (full metal). Auto focus is not very fast (it?s ok for me) even on my F 100, which has extremely fast auto focus with my prime lenses and the 28-105 AFD.

[tony bell]

Mine is sharp throughout the length of the lens. Perhaps there is a problem with consistency from sample to sample.

[hugh_sakols]

I use this lens and like it very much for backpacking. I think one explanation

for the mixed opinions regarding sharpness at the long end has to do with the

lens not having a tripod collar. I have had very sharp results at the long end

when making sure that I use a fast shutter speed. Even with a sturdy tripod

head this lens is not the most stable fully extended. Thus shooting at 15th or

30th of a second might result in poor sharpness. The 70-180 micro would be

ideal but cost much much more.

[doghouse_reilly]

Any opinions?<div></div>

[Michael R Freeman]

Yes - it's a "plane", not a "plain". Sorry, couldn't help it ... give me thirty lashes :-)

 

Probably not the best subject matter to judge lens performance for sharpness. Rapidly moving subject, featureless corners, flat lighting, panning with the subject(?) ... Lot's of variables.

 

Mike

[doghouse_reilly]

Sharp enough?

[doghouse_reilly]

another one...

[Michael R Freeman]

Doghouse,<P>Nothing wrong with those for a basic assessment of center sharpness and background bokeh, but if you want to truly evaluate your lens you need to take shots that have lots of fine detail in the corners and center. Shoot at various distances, focal lengths, and apertures. A shot wide open (f/5.6) at 200mm will show any flaws or shortcomings with this lens, as this will be where the weakest performance is for this model.<p>

Here is a shot I took to evaluate a N60 and 35~70 zoom. <p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2497602">Nikkor 35~70 Test</a><p>Nothing spectacular about the photo, but I wanted to see how the lens performed in the corners wide open (by checking for detail in the the brick in the top right corner). This was an "infinity" shot. I also did some close up shots to check performance at close focus. Not a scientific test by any means, but good enough for me to see if the lens was worth keeping.<p>

I don't own the 70~210 Nikkor myself, but I did buy one for my brother. Didn't have a chance to run any film tests with it before I gave it to him, but he's pleased with it. As long as he (and you) are happy with the lens it doesn't really matter what anybody else thinks about it. At a cost of about $125-$150 used, and based on various subjective evaluations I have seen on the web, I think you can assume this lens offers a very good performance/price ratio. No doubt a 80~200 f/2.8 ED will be better, but at a MUCH higher cost.<p>Mike