Bargain Nikkor

[h._p.]

<p>I'm so impressed with people who find great equipment for little money on this forum but didn't think I'd be that lucky. I put a bid on this 200mm AIS and didn't expect to get anywhere near the final price. To my amazement, I got it for the equivalent of $20.</p>

<p>As the seller said, it has marks on the front and back elements (some fungus, some just dirt) but before sending it for cleaning, I thought I'd take it out and see what I could get.</p><div></div>

[h._p.]

<p>I put the lens on my F3 and went to Cricklade, a very small town in North Wiltshire.</p><div></div>

[h._p.]

<p>These aren't scans, by the way. They're out of the Summit Photofix, basically a digital camera with a light source and a negative carrier attached.</p><div></div>

[h._p.]

<p>I'll have to treat the lens to a clean. It would be silly to let it get any worse, although I don't see any obvious signs that the fungus is affecting the image.</p><div></div>

[michaelging]

<p>That always was a good lens. I used one at the paper till they gave me a 180 2.8 which is a great lens.I do notice the lower left of each of your photo is under exposed and the right side is over exposed. </p>

[photo5]

<p>Nice price! I lusted after a 180mm 2.8 ED for years until I bought one in beat up condition, but optically exc, for $140, which I was very pleased with. That and finding a mint 105mm f2.5 K for $49.99 buy it now, 28mm 2.8 AIS for $98, etc. Nothing like good Nikkors for little money. Try that with your Leica lenses!!</p>

[h._p.]

<p>The slant exposure is from the Summit. It's fine for proofing but I really need to scan things I'm going to share with others.</p>

<p>I had a 180/2.8 back when I used a pair of F4s. It really is a superb lens. Unfortunately it was my back or the F4 outfit and I decided that the F4s and their lenses had to go.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>H.P., I sold my 180mm lens because I didn't use it that much and it was quite large and heavy to carry around. I owned a 200mm f/4 in the 80s, and don't remember how old it was, but it was a terrible lens. Then I decided to buy another one at KEH, bargain condition, newest AIS version, for about $100. It arrived and looked absolutely brand new, except for a very tiny scuff mark on the lens shade.</p>

<p>Anyway, I have been shooting the heck out of that little gem and love it. It is sharp, and well balanced, visually, and it fits in my bag without much weight or space. It is an under appreciated Nikkor IMO. Here are a couple of pics I took with it on my first outing:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11316730<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/11316711</p>

[gerry b.]

<p>For light-weight travel, it makes a great 300mm lens on a DX camera.</p>

[h._p.]

<p>Marvellous shots, Michael. I really like wind turbines. Some people seem to think they're ugly but I always find them graceful and your pictures show that well.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The 200mm F4 Nikkor goes back to the 1961 20cm F4 which is 4 elements in 3 groups.</p>

<p>It got redesigned as a 5 elements in 5 groups back in 1977 at serial # 71001 and above; this is an AI lens.</p>

<p>The 5 element 5 group lens is a bit better than the older one.</p>

<p>H.P. has the newer/better optical design</p>

<p>There are folk like Michael that used the older lens and said "...it was a terrible lens" are are true in many cases.</p>

<p>The older variant is decent at many fstops; but some of us (me included) got some just average to poor shots too.</p>

<p>I personally went from early 1960's 20cm F4 to a 180mm F2.8 ED and was rather shocked at the older lenses faults. It was a good lens for its era; the newer 200mm F4 past 1977 often faces an unjust bias</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I have this same lens in good condition. My other 200mm Nikkors include a 20cm/4, a 200/4 Q and a 200/4 QC. The Q was converted to AI by John WHite just before I found the QC with a factory AI conversion ring. The 20cm lens does not focus very close and has older coating. The Q and QC lenses are very good. As good as the 200/4 AI's reputation is, I don't find it any better that the QC or even the Q. If care is taken to use a high enough shutter speed or a tripod, the Q and QC lenses are capable of very good results. My favorite 200s include the 200/3.5 Konica Hexanon, 200/3.5 Minolta MC Rokkor-X, 200/2.8 Canon New FD (1st version) and 200/3 Vivitar Series 1. </p>

[david_l3]

<p>Back in the day I had an old 200mm f4 QC and it was mediocre optically, not to mention big and heavy. Several years later I got the AIS version and it was excellent optically, and lighter and smaller. I really liked that 200 AIS, wish I'd never sold it. </p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Mine is serial number 484xxx which places it around 1969, and it was never a stellar performer. In bright ,high contrast light it does a decent job. But the lens at only F4, always seems dark, and low contrast. I tried it on my D50 Nikon, and got similar results.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Lots of people would pay extra for that softness in a few of your pictures. Check to make sure cleaning won't be more than the lens is worth, but I don't mean more than $20. ;)</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>FWIW, I am fully convinced that bad copies of Nikkor lenses exist. That could be the case from the factory, or lenses that perhaps lived a hard life. I hear all the time about how the 24mm f/2 is a terrible lens, yet it is among the best I own. I didn't mean to infer that the older lenses were bad, only that my copy was bad. I try never t speak for all lenses<g>.</p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>I have that lens, and it does a nice job:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9161854-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="543" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6931518-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="1019" /></p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>I got an F4/200 as part of the kit that came with my FT2. The shots that I took with it came out A1. As an added bonus, I found that I can also use it with my F70. You won't find me slagging this lens. It serves me well.</p>