200mm f/4 Micro manual focus

[ebogaerts]

I am considering purchasing this lens, and while I've done some

searching the web seems to be kind of dry when it comes to information

on this lens.

 

I was curious what former or current users have to say about the lens.

How does it compare to other micro Nikkors in terms of performance?

How is the handling of the lens?

[bjørn rørslett]

Handling is simply superb, there probably are only a very few Nikkors around that mounts so perfectly on a tripod as the venerable 200 MF Micro. Focusing is very fast, positive, and smooth. It takes 52 mm filters so you avoid the much more expensive 77 type which seems to have become today's standard (the 200/4 AF Micro however uses 62mm). The lens is quite light and very well built.

 

The drawbacks are as follows,

 

1. the built-in lens shade is on the shorter side and the lens does flare and ghost quite easily.

 

2. it only goes to 1:2 so you need additional extension or TC to bring it closer to 1:1. Although Nikon recommends using the TC-301 to give 1:1, this combination in fact is optically not very good and the whole package becomes vibration-prone under field conditions. If you use a two-element close-up lens to achieve 1:1, the lens usually performs best if the add-on lens is mounted in a reversed position.

 

3. there are no ED elements and colour fringing, depending on subject and scene contrast, may be an issue. This is very evident on the D2X.

 

4. Sharpness across the frame may be uneven and the corners occasionally are a little soft, so it seems not to achieve flat-field correction on par with the other Micro-Nikkors. The over-all sharpness is more than acceptable but not in the league as the successor 200/4 AF.

 

Feel free to ask for more details. I own all of the Micro-Nikkors.

[michael_mandell]

Well, this is not an answer, but a question for Bjorn (BTW, you have an EXCELLENT web site re lens reviews).

 

I have the 60 MM AF Macro lens. I shoot mostly flowers with my D70. Do I really need the next step up, the 105 MM Macro, or do I just have "lens lust"? It might help with flash, due to working distance. (I can not afford the 200 MM lens.)

 

I have found the 60 MM macro to be quite sharp.

 

Thank you

 

MM

[dan_fromm1]

Eric, this is an old question that has been asked and answered here many times.

 

I have all three AI/AIS MicroNikkors. I've had two 200s, the first was stolen and fool that I am I replaced it with another.

 

My two 200s were/are the softest and least contrasty of the lot. This is consistent with a test of the lens in Modern Photography that measured resolution at < 45 lp/mm center and edge at all apertures and measured contrast at whatever resolution they used at around 40% center and edge at all apertures.

 

In short, the 200/4 AI/AIS MicroNikkor is the worst of a good lot. It isn't a bad lens, but it isn't in the same class as the 105/2.8 or 55/2.8. And yes, I use mine.

 

As for handling, no problems. It is light, the tripod socket works well as Bjorn said. The tripod socket is removable so not all used lenses have it anymore, beware of that when shopping.

[ShunCheung]

I only have 105mm and 200mm macros, both AF which I usually switch off. I prefer the longer macros because they give you more working distance from your subject. For one thing it is easier to prevent literally casting your own shadow on the subject and in the case of insects, the additional distance helps not to disturb them.

 

The 200mm/f4 macros have the advantage of having a tripod collar, which is very handy.

[ebogaerts]

Thanks everyone for your replies.

 

In terms of dioper useage, I had read (it may have been at your website, Bjorn) that the 6T diopter can be 'unscrewed' and the elements reversed, so that additional filters can be added to the front of the diopter while maintaining the peformance of the reversed diopter. Can the same thing be done with the 4T?

[bjørn rørslett]

Sure. No problem. The double elements of 4T,5T,6T, all are held in position by a metal strip which rides inside a groove. Just use a small screwdriver or similar to force the end of the strip out of its "hiding" place and then the optics can be removed and inserted in the reversed position. A 60 sec job.

[roland_vink]

Hi, I have the AiS version of this lens and agree with Bjorn's assessment. Read it again and the review on his site. I also agree that it is not the sharpest lens. I guess if you shoot test targets you will find better lenses. If you shoot real three dimension subjects I think you will be very pleased with the performance of this lens. Images produced have plenty of fine detail and good contrast.

 

Lack of ED glass does mean there is some color fringing. I've seen this in pictures of sea shells at the beach - sand grains near the edge of the frame show some color fringing. However most pictures show a subject (eg flower) against an out of focus background so color fringing rarely shows up.

 

I guess the lens flares easily but for macro subjects I rarely find myself shooting against the light so again I don't think this is a problem in real use.

 

To increase magnication I have found three options which work. The TB-14B gives decent results. The resulting 280/5.6 is rather long and slow but it is manageable. Magnification is up to 1:1.4x.

 

My favored option is using a PK-13 extension tube. Magnification range goes from about 1:7 - 1:1.4x which is quite a useful range. This also gives a little more working distance which may be useful.

 

I also use a No.3T closeup filter with good results. The magnification range is similar to the PK-13; the image is slightly brighter but the working distance is less.

[joseph_smith3]

I own both of the 200mm Nikon micro lenses, with the AF version my more recent purchase. I bought it because of the reviews and postings that said it was sharper than the 200mm manual focus version. I will leave that matter to the experts above who have already spoken. With my images, all taken with a tripod, I cannot tell the difference in image quality on slide film between the two lenses. Sometimes I prefer taking the manual focus version with me when hiking. It is lighter. Also the built in lens hood means I do not have to pack a separate lens hood. If lighting is difficult, I use my hat as an extra lens hood. I like adding the TC 14B to the lens for greater magnifications. If money is not an issue, get the AF version. If you are strapped for cash, then the mf version might work for you. Joe Smith