Is older 180mm 1:2.8 really same as 180mm ED 1:2.8?

[paul_neuthaler]

"Moose" Peterson suggests that the older lense always had the ED

front glass. Does anyone know about this? Is the older 180 just as

good? I'm talking about Manual Focus in both cases.

[Michael R Freeman]

I had the older 180/2.8 AI. It is a very good lens. I have never used the ED 180/2.8 AIS so can't offer a direct comparison. Most seem to think the newer ED version is slightly better.

 

It is *very unlikely* that the older lens had ED glass (why would Nikon not promote this fact at the time if it did). It is definitely NOT the same as the later ED version, as it has a different optical arrangement (easily noticeable with the rear element placement). If the older lens did indeed have ED glass, why did Nikon redesign the optical formula for the upgrade to AIS?

 

Just wishful thinking and "misinformation" from Moose IMHO. That said, I was very pleased with the pictorial results from my AI 180/2.8, and would still have it if I had not had to sell it to raise funds for a 80~200/2.8.

 

Mike

[lee hamiel]

I have owned both - sold the ED version & realised that I missed it - bought the previous non "ED" version & very pleased & I will concur with Moose that it's the same w/out the gold banding & markings. Remember that this was at the onset of ED glass being hyped & I feel that maybe Nikon decided to test run the lenses before making any grand claims.

 

Good Luck

[ellis_vener_photography]

There have been several iterations of the 180 f/2.8 Niikor, many before the introduction

of the 180mm f/2.8 AI-S ED Nikkor. probably the very last of those iterations -

cosmetically similar to the ED (but without the gold ring) version uses ED glass, but earlier

variations the ones

with the squared off as opposed to tapered back end, did not use ED glass.

[david_debalko1]

Just sold my 180 2.8 to raise funds for a 80-200, feeling a little sorry-the 180 is a great

lens although on a digital body it was a little too long for alot of what I shoot.

Dave

[t._shepherd]

I have an AI non-ED ver. and have looked at the AIS ED (tapered ver.) and AF vers. through a viewfinder - I couldn't tell any difference, but I'm not an expert and that's not a real test anyway. Someone once suggested that a test would be side by side color prints of some distant object blown up beyond recognition - then you may see the ED handle color aberrations better than the non-ED (?).

[brian_caldwell]

Unfortunately, Moose Peterson is just guessing. The only way to know for sure is to measure the chromatic aberration for both lenses, or, better, to measure the index and dispersion of the front element. If the old version does not have ED glass then I would expect it to suffer in the violet portion of the spectrum. For this reason, testing should be done in daylight rather than indoors with tungsten light.

[kelly_flanigan1]

This rumour is not Moose's' it is an old rumor that "some" of the just before labled ED 180mm were actually really ED glass. This same type of "event" happened just before the Leica Summicrin 50mm F2 was marketed ine the early 1950's. I happen to believe that "some" of the slightly earlier 180mm's had ED glass. I heard about this 180mm tale a decade before I ever heard of Moose.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The general lay public places a great weight in serial numbers; model changes; like they are a super defined black and white change. In engineering on a mass produced product; engineers run test runs; production qual runs test batches; when parts are changed; modified; or when prototype new things are intoduced in a controlled way. The serial numbers are issued in advance; in blocks; so a field failure or success can be monitored or pulled. The general lay public seems focused that a brick wall exists; and all changes are perfectly done at once; therefore lens A is like this; serial group B is like this. In reality; maybe I was experimenting with the yield quality of using a new lens centering; bonding; coating; edge grind/centering; and optical design; and did the test with real product; using a serial number batch assigned to my pet product. After the test; the saleable items are sold with the regular production. The duds maybe crushed; or go to the bottom of an engineers drawer. Thus a micro "better" batch can be released; the general lay public is clueless; unless a security leak happens. Issuing serial numbers is as easy as having your wife use check numbers 100 higher; so you know who wrote what check easier. Some serial number blocks are reserved; but never used; and then voided; or used years later. Lenses also can sit for years in a stores inventory before being sold.

[lex_jenkins]

(Dang it, here I go again... I swore I was gonna take a few days off this week...)

 

Nope, not true. Moose is a very likeable and sincere fellow but he ain't always right.

 

My 180/2.8 is an F or F2 era pre-ED, non-AI'd version. Absolutely beautiful lens that's sharp wide open with lovely bokeh.

 

But no ED glass. It takes some extremes to reveal it but the closest it'll ever get is if I name the lens "Ed". No matter - I've never missed it since I don't use the lens for anything but portraiture under favorable lighting.

[marco_ritelli]

Don't think too much about the ED glass.The 180mm f2.8 non ed is a great lens, sharp even wide open.I just bought one, and to say that I'm satisfied is reductive.Look at these pics I made with this lens: http://www.sportphoto.8k.com/photo.html

 

I would like to thank you all the people of this forum who helped me in the choice.When I went to the store I asked to the shopkeeper if there was the ED version, he told me that he hadn't one at the moment; but he assured me that the results you can get from this lens are superlative, and incredibly he asked me if I want to try it for one day for free, so I tried it and then I bought it.The only negative point is the minimum focus distance that is quite long.

[paul_neuthaler]

Thanks for all your help: I just purchased an AI, pre-ED version, in "Excellent" condition from KEH.

[don_oconnor1]

OK, here are some FACTS:

The 400mm f5.6 was originally introduced with ED glass even though Nikon didn't advertise it as such, nor did it have a gold ring when first introduced. If you want to see if your older 180mm had ED glass just photograph telephone wires or thin branches against a bright backgreound (sky). If it has ED glass there should be no color fringing on the edges. In other words no magenta on one edge and no yellow on the other.

[don_oconnor1]

Update: I have a "non ED" 180mm f2.8 serial number 375754. It is definitely multicoated. Recently received Sensia RA slides of thin branches in silhouette against bright sunlit white clouds reveal NO magenta or yellow fringing. I photographed the branches (approx. 1/2" to 1/16" diameter) from about 20 feet.

Conclusion: This particular "non ED" lens is, in fact, an ED lens.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Many times an ED optical defice has more focal shift with temperature. Thus many are made to "focus past infinity" on the mechanical scale.