Opinions about two lenses: 180mm/f2.8 AI and 300mm/f4.5 AI-S

[marco_ritelli]

Hi, this morning I had nothing to do(no work) so I went searching

for a zoom lenses for my FE2.One dealers offered me a used nikon

180mm f2.8 AI + a nikon 300 f4.5 AIS for 400 euros.I think it's a

good offer, don't you think? I remember that the price of these

lenses was a lot higher 20 years ago,when I bought my first lens

(Nikon 105mm f2,5 AIS F series,the only that I own)I paid near the

same but only for one lens... I'm not an expert of the photographic

technology, I just shoot, someone can tell me something about qualty

of these lenses? are they going to make me regret the purchase

comparing to the 105mm?Bye and thank you.

[bill_kleimen]

See the following on the 300 f4.5:

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/300ais.htm

[joel_blacher]

Hi Marco,

I can't tell you if the prices are good, but the lenses certainly are. Both are made to last forever and have very good optical perfomance. I believe that the 300 you speak of is an ED lens and the 180 is not. This is probably not going to be a deciding factor for you, so I would get either with confidence as long as they are in equally good shape (clean glass, smooth focus throw and aperture ring, nice tight diaphragm spring (the small lever that slides back and forth on the lens mount). Base the decision upon which focal length will be more useful to you. Let us know which you decide on (or get both : ) Hope this helps.

[frank granovski]

You might also want to check http://www.naturfotograf.com for lens evaluations.

[jwittenberg]

Peter Braczko's The Nikon Handbook lists 2 non-AI, 1 AI, 1 AIS, and 3 AF versions of the 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor. All apparently were quite good, with most sources ranking them AF (either the D or the non-Ds, although the 1st non-D version apparently has a narrow focussing ring at the very front - i.e., not as good for manual focussing) first, the AIS second, then the AI - I don't know about the non-AI, but I suspect lower than the AI. I have the AF-D and the AI, and they are both first-rate lenses, and both are extremely well built. I guess I'll go along with the ranking consensus and rank the AF-D first, but I will say that it would take careful examination to show that the AI lens performed more poorly than the AF-D. In short, the AI is a great lens. It's only real shortcoming (for me) is that it's a bit large (not compared to zooms, though!) and takes the oddball 72mm filters. I find that I often take my 200mm f/4 AI in preference to the 180mm, not because it's a better lens - it isn't, although it is a very good lens in its own right - but because the 200mm is considerably smaller, and takes a standard 52mm filter, as do the rest of my most often used lenses. I don't know about European prices, but 3 years ago my 180mm cost me over $300. If the price seems good to you then I'd certainly recommend the 180mm as a great lens to have.

 

You might want to browse http:/www.naturfotograf.com for some lens opinions from someone who has used a great many lenses and has posted some well-thought out opinions on them.

[John Crowe]

Not sure what a Euro is worth. Make sure the 300 is an ED lens and wait until you find a 180mm ED lens. You can probably get the ED version for the same price or a little more. Good luck.

[david_h._hartman]

The 300/4.5 ED-IF AI or AIS is a good lens but its been

long superceded. Its primary fault is it really should be stopped

down to something between f/5.6 and f/8.0. If a 300mm f/6.7 lens

sounds good to you and the price is right then buy it. Id

pass on the 180/2.8 AI as its not an ED lens. The 180/2.8 ED

AIS Nikkor is a gem and performs almost flawlessly wide open.

This is not to say that the 180/2.8 AI is a bad lens only that

the ED is better.<br>

<br>

If at all possible buy the new AF-S 300/4.0D ED-IF. Its

reputation save for the very poor tripod collar is excellent.

Plan on buying an after market tripod collar.<br>

<br>

<em>I've seen surprisingly little variation in over image

quality in Nikon's slow 300mm lenses over the past 35 years.

-- KenRockwell.com<br>

</em><br>

I have to call this one: if one has not used important samples

and apparently has no other bases for such a statement why make

it? I owned the 300/4.5 Nikkor-H Auto and the 300/4.5 ED-IF is

definitely better.<br>

<br>

A long lens, a telephoto, should perform at or near its best even

wide open given its operating conditions. If a manual focus lens

is required then the 300/2.8 ED-IF AI or AIS is a much better

choice. If I had know more when I bought my 300/4.5 ED-IF Id

have coughed up an extra thousand (USD) and bought the 300/2.8 ED-IF.

I was under the mistaken belief that all ED Nikkors had excellent

performance wide open. I've owned my 300/4.5 ED-IF AI since 1980.<br>

<br>

Here is a excellent site for Nikkor lens evaluations. Look for

lenses on the left...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com</u></a><br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[marco_ritelli]

I'm talking about the 180mm non ED version and also the 300mm non ed.From what you written I understood that a lens with ED glass is much better, isn't it? So I'll wait to find a 180/200mm or a 300mm, both ED.Anyway I prefer a fast 180/200mm then a 300mm 4/4,5 ED, because it's more usable, in my opinion.

[ShunCheung]

Long lens means any vibration is significantly magnifed. Therefore, they are frequently used wide open such that one can use a fast shutter speed as Dave points out. That is why I don't like zooms that reach 300mm at maximum f5.6. However, there is another problem with a 300mm/f2.8. While an extra stop is great, they are of course expensive but they are also big and heavy. I actually have both a 300mm/f2.8 and a 300mm/f4; frequently I would rather use the f4 because it is much easier to carry around.

 

Unless you specalize in low-light wildlife or sports, the 300mm/f4 or 4.5 should be a good compromise.

[lex_jenkins]

Marco, I don't think Nikon ever made a less than excellent 180mm f/2.8. Mine is the pre-ED, non-AI version, a heavy, large diameter beast. I use it only on my F3. I keep meaning to have it AI'd but haven't gotten around to it.

 

There might be instances when ED glass would matter but so far I haven't encountered any.

 

If I was forced to choose between my 105mm f/2.5 AI and 180/2.8, I'd be seriously tempted to choose the 180mm. When there's enough working space it's possible to reduce distractions in a busy background better than with the 105/2.5. When working space is tight a short extension tube would allow for closer focusing.

 

But I'm not being objective. It's just that some of my favorite photos have been taken with the 180 so I'm partial to it. And it's a relative bargain considering the focal length, speed, optical quality and other factors.

 

I don't have any use for long telephotos so I can't comment constructively on that.

[arnabdas]

"I have to call this one: if one has not used important samples and apparently has no other bases for such a statement why make it?"

 

Because he is *Ken Rockwell*, Dave. That's his job.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>I'm talking about the 180mm non ED version and also

the 300mm non ed. From what you written I understood that a lens

with ED glass is much better, isn't it? --Marco Ritelli<br>

</em><br>

Sorry I messed up. There is an 300/4.5 IF-ED in AI and AIS. I

have the AI version. Its a sweet handling lens but needs to

be stopped down some so Im hard on it. I really think of it

as a 300mm f/6.7 lens. It works well as a standoff close-up lens

with a PN-11 and PK-13 extension tube and gives around one half

life size. If the budget is constrained Id go for one. I

dont think Id want the one of the non-ED 300/4.5(s)

in any version today.<br>

<br>

There is a 300/4.5 ED that is a non-IF. Bjorn Rorslett rates this

one very highly. I dont recall that Ive ever seen one.

Id buy that one. Bjorn Rorslett really hammers my old 300/4.5

Nikkor-H Auto. I didnt remember it as being that bad but I

bought it new in the early 70s. That was quite a while ago.<br>

<br>

The non-IF telephotos in 300~400mm with long focus helicoils are

quite smooth at first and get progressively stiffer as they are

focused close. Whats happening is the parts of the helical

that are in contact with one another get shorter and the weight

of the front elements moving forward causes increased drag. You

can put one finger under the front of the lens and add a little

lift to keep them smooth. If you are good at this the non-IF will

handle fairly fast but not like the IF-ED(s).<br>

<br>

According to the Yahoo! currency converter your Euro is worth 1.3

dollars so $400.00 sounds high for both the lenses you mention.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

PS: I just poked my nose into <a href="http://www.keh.com/"

target="_new"><u>http://www.keh.com/</u></a>. They list a 300/4.5

AI w/ caps in Excellent Plus condition for $225.00 (USD).

I think thats about 175.00 Euro. A 300/4.5 IF-ED in Like

New Minus is just $525.00 (USD), Excellent Plus

just $484.00.

[marco_ritelli]

So after thinking about it, I just pulled out of my mind a 180/200mm and I limited the choice between a 300mm f4 or f4.5 and any nikon fast f2.8 tele.My budget is around 450 euros(587$).On KEH I also have found this:

http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=9858689&SKID=NA06999022397N5&SID=newused&BID=NA&CID=06&SOID=N&curpic=0&dpsp=0

[kelly_flanigan1]

An old decades old Nikon rumor is that some of the non ED marked 180mm F2.8's later production run actually had ED glass. There was once a 180mm F2.5 in a N mount. Ths required a N to F adapter for the Nikon F. This was a preset lens; ie no auto diaphrame at all. Later the Nikkor Auto 180mm F2.8 cam out in the 1960's sometime. This had a fork/prong and an autodiaphrame. I used one of these once; it was just average wide open. The way newer 180mm F2.8 ED I have is sharper wide open by a good bit; and noticeable in sports shots. Lex might have a lucky built nonED 180mm; or an ED version without the ED tag???

[ShunCheung]

First of all, generally speaking, prices are considerably higher in Europe than in the US. I think that applies to used equipment as well.

 

$500 for a 300mm/f4.5 ED IF AI-S is kind of high. When I upgraded to the AF-S version a couple of years back, I sold my 300mm/f4 AF ED IF (in mint condition) for $500 with a RRS plate and a Nikon 82mm L37c filter; of course I didn't provide any warranties as KEH would. In these days AI-S lenses should be much cheaper.

[marco_ritelli]

From the description of Bargain:"Bargain 70-79% of original condition. Shows more than average wear. May have dents, dings and a goodly amount of brassing and finish loss. Glass may have marks that should not affect picture quality." I think it's better to not buy an item in this conditions.Do you agree?

[susan_smith5]

I asked a question here a little while back about ED glass in the 180/2.8 - I came to the conclusion that, since I already had a non-ED version, it wasn't worth hunting around for an ED version.<br><br>

 

I was once in a store and was able to compare, very simply with an F5, my 180/2.8 AI non-ED, an AIS ED and an AF version. <u>To me</u> they were all excellent, so I'm not any losing sleep over my non-ED.<br><br>

 

My 180/2.8 is an old newspaper lens and has taken a beating. The built in hood was already gone before I got it and the rubber focussing ring perished and fell off. Cosmetically it is a basket case. It recently had a CLA and they extracted half a teaspoon of sand from it. It now feels even better!

[hannu]

<p>Dave Hartman wrote: <i>There is a 300/4.5 ED that is a non-IF. Bjorn Rorslett rates this one very highly. I don?t recall that I?ve ever seen one. I?d buy that one.</i>

 

<p>I had that one, thought I wouldn't need it after I got a 400/5.6 and sold it to a friend. Am thinking about buying it back, even if it wouldn't see much use as I was quite satisfied with the images.

 

<p>The only problem is the non-IF part, it is rather heavy to focus.

[marco_ritelli]

Today, coming back from work,I tried a new AF 70-300D ED 4-5.6.I'm really disappointed, I don't like the misuse of plastic, and the low luminosity that make this lens usable only when sun shines.If you have to freeze the action with fast shutter speed you could have a problem with this lens.But I liked the weight, it's really light.I would buy a f2.8 but I'm afraid of the wheight and the size of this lens.On the other hand a f4/4,5 is more compact.It's up to me.Thank you very much for your advice and suggestion!

[brian_caldwell]

"There is a 300/4.5 ED that is a non-IF. Bjorn Rorslett rates this one very highly."

 

The 300/4.5 ED non-IF is a great lens. Unfortunately, now that Bjorn Rorslett has found one and accurately described its imaging quality its likely to become even harder to find one! You have to be very diligent in sifting through ebay to find this lens because it is nearly identical in appearance to the non-ED non-IF version.

[marco_ritelli]

Why the non IF version is better then the IF? Normally one thinks that the evolution brings better things.Normally,it's common to think that evolution brings improvements.

[david_h._hartman]

Marco,<br>

<br>

Internal focus lenses often have problems with color fringing.

The 300/4.5 IF-ED AI or AIS has only one ED element. A more

expensive design might have held its own against the rare

300/4.5 ED AI but that was saved for the 300/2.8 IF-ED AI and AIS.

The 300/4.5 IF-ED certainly is a sweet handling lens and thats

its improvement.<br>

<br>

Note that I am trusting Bjorn Rorsletts testing and

uncompromising standards as Ive never touched a 300/4.5 ED

AI Nikkor. Its not listed in a Nikkor Lens Sales Manual I

have thats dated (79-1). I think AI lenses were released in

about march of 1977 so the 300/4.5 ED would have been made for

less than two years.<br>

<br>

Anyway new is not always better, sometimes yes, sometimes no.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[brian_caldwell]

"Why the non IF version is better then the IF?"

 

The non-IF version is a very simple design that is extremely well corrected for distant subjects. If my information is correct it also uses two large ED elements in the front group to achieve essentially perfect axial color correction. The sample I have is certainly a very high performance lens.

 

I don't know nearly as much about the IF version, but David is correct that it only has a single ED element, in this case one of the two large positive powered elements near the front. This alone would make it much more difficult to achieve the same degree of color correction as the non-IF. The need to incorporate an effective internal focusing group would place additional strain on the design.

 

I suspect that the ED non-IF version was more expensive to make and less popular due to the bulky focus movement, and this explains why it is now a rare lens.