aubrey Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 <p> <p>No question, a new Nikon 200mm F4 D ED-IF AF Micro Nikkor would be a great lens for my close up bug work. But if I don't really need the auto focus, why not get a used Nikon 200 mm F4 AI Micro Nikkor?<br> Optically, is the Nikon 200 mm F4 AI Micro Nikkor equal to the Nikon 200mm F4 D ED-IF AF Micro Nikkor?<br> Thank you.</p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 <p>I've had both, and wonder why I switched to the AF version. I never use AF for micro work. If it will save you money, I'd stick with the old version. I <em>think </em> the design is the same, but they're both smokin' sharp.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyinca Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 <p>You should check the spec. One is $1600 and one is less then $360. One has 13 elements the other has only 9. One has 2 ED glass with fancy CRC, one is plain and get your only to 1:2. $1300 buy you more then just a motor.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubrey Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 <p>Thanks for the replies. What confuses me to no end is that they both are 200mm and both focus to about 20", yet the AF spec says 1:1 and the manual specs at 1:2. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 <p>I have never seen the specs on the mf version, but the 2:1 sounds correct to me. I used to own this lens if it takes 52mm filters and has a built in lens hood and a removable tripod collar mount. It also mates with the Nikon 14B and Nikon 301 teleconverters. This can be an advantage to you if you have these 1.4x and 2x tcs or like adding tcs to your macro lenses. It takes very sharp pictures. It is easy to use and I really liked the way it focused. It is easier to focus manually than the AF version. (There are various versions of this macro lens as I recall so be careful which one you buy.)<br> The AF version is a longer and much heavier lens; i.e it has the extra length built into it that gets you from 2:1 to 1:1.<br> If you get the mf version, buy the Nikon PN 11 tube, a 52mm extension tube. By adding that tube (extra length) , you will get to 1:1 or thereabouts. If you do get the mf version of the lens, DO NOT use Kenko extension tubes with it. They will work, but because they are narrower in diameter than the Nikon tubes you are likely to get vignetting in all of the images taken with them with this lens. I know this from first hand experience.<br> Joe Smith</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_thompson Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 <p>I have the manual focus and waited to go digital until the D200 came out and actiually waited til the D300 came out to buy. I waited mostly because I wanted to keep the 200 micro MF. The MF does NOT work with all digital camera bodies for metering etc. So check carefully before you buy that you won't have compatibility problems with what you intend to do, look for an AI mount on the body you use. I even had truble with the last film body I bought, think it was a N80. Check twice before plunking down the $$$</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 <p><em>Thanks for the replies. What confuses me to no end is that they both are 200mm and both focus to about 20", yet the AF spec says 1:1 and the manual specs at 1:2. </em></p> <p>The 200/4 AF Micro lens has internal focusing (IF), which works in part by shortening the focal length. At the closest distance, the focal length has been reduced to about 160 mm. This is true for the other AF Micro lenses, the 60 and 105, whereas the older AIS lenses focus mainly using an extended mechanical helix. CRC is used in some AIS lenses, which uses moving elements in order to get better results at both normal and close ranges, but does not have the same effect on focal length as IF.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubrey Posted July 29, 2009 Author Share Posted July 29, 2009 <p>Great info, all. Thanks.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 <p>Check out Bjorn Rorslett's comments on the 200mm Micro lenses at <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com">www.naturfotograf.com</a>. Quite a difference.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzyzx_joshua Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 <p>I have the 200 manual and use it on Canon Digital bodies as well as my F3's. Have no problems with quality. It is lightweight and easy to use and the extra working distance is wecome most of the time.<br> It works well, the images are sharp and have good contrast. The newer one may be a bit better, I don't know from personal experience because I have never used the newer AF model.<br> If possible, go to a solid camera shop and shoot a few images through one or both to do a comparison. That should help you make the decision.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now