200 mm AF lenses

[peter_schauss2]

<p>Did Nikon ever make an AF version of their 200 mm F4 AI lens?</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>No</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

There is an AF version (at least one) of the 180mm f/2.8 however and it's smaller and lighter than the AI-S version.

[ShunCheung]

There is a 200mm/f4 macro AF-D lens.

[bebu_lamar]

<p>There are both the 180mm f/2.8 version and the 200mm f/4 micro version but no 200mm f/4 which is a regular telephoto lens and very inexpensive. The 200mm f/4 micro is even more expensive than the 180mm f/2.8 which is a whole stop faster. I paid less than $200 for the 200 f/4 AI in the early 80's. Today a newer version should cost around $400 only not any where near the price of the 180mm or the 200mm micro.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nikon introduced the 200mm/f4 AI back in 1977, and I bought one in late 1978. During that era, zooms were uncommon and one of the few available back then was the 80-200mm/f4.5 AI and then f4 AI-S.</p>

<p>Today, that focal length is much better covered by various zooms such as the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR, 70-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR, and 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR. Even the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR covers it on its short end. If you consider DX zooms, there are many additional choices.</p>

<p>There are now also the 200mm/f2 AF-S VR, 180mm/f2.8 AF-D and the 200mm/f4 macro I mentioned. So there is no shortage of choices. The plain 200mm/f4 is out of favor now.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Just for completeness... I've tested a modified TC-16A on a 135 f/2.8 AI. That's an effective 216mm f/4.5, that autofocuses. I'm not sure I'd recommend the combination (though the 135 f/2.8 is perfectly decent and the TC-16A is at least a cool novelty), but it's small and inexpensive.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The 200mm f/4 Ai lens is pretty poor by today's standards. I used one on a D700, where it was OK, but the D800 definitely shows up its shortcomings (edge softness and CA). You'll get slightly better image quality from a 70-210mm f/4 AF Zoom-Nikkor in a not-much bigger barrel. That's if you can still find one and put up with the fairly slow AF speed. Note; The second edition of 70-210mm f/4~5.6 Zoom Nikkor, with trombone zoom, was a piece of garbage - don't touch.</p>

<p>Otherwise your options are pretty much limited to those that Shun mentioned I'm afraid, especially the 180mm f/2.8 AF Nikkor.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>My 180/2.8 AFD is a very good performer on the D800 (and other bodies) and is compact compared to 2.8 zooms. Though slowish, AF speed seems adequate with modern bodies for most purposes. In the used market, I think that the 180/2.8 AFD is a good value.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Here's a link to the specifications of all F-mount Nikkor lenses:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html">http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html</a></p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>The 200mm f/4 Ai lens is pretty poor by today's standards.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have had good experience with the Ai-s model. I have seen plenty of other praise online, so I do not think I am alone.</p>

<p>I just want to point out lens development does not necessarily follow a linear, upward path from old to new. My Nikkor 70-300 VR is unquestionably superior in any number of ways (not brightness), but I still value the 200mm Ai-s. I tend to shoot with modern lenses but I like the results I get with MF Nikkors in certain situations. </p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I have the Ai-S 200/4, and have have tested it against several lenses, including the 70-200/4 VR, the 70-210/4.0.5.6D-AF, and the 80-200/4.5-5.6D-AF. Personally, I find all these lenses acceptable for use on the D800 and Df. Rank them like this:<br /> 70-200/4G-VR - Perfect, except for some geometric distortion.</p>

<p>200/4.0Ai-S - Excellent, just a hint less contrast and sharpness than the 70-200/4G-VR, but easily made more-excellent in post processing.</p>

<p>80-200/4.5-5.6D-AF - Very good to excellent (long to short), but the plastic-wobble has to be mentioned, the lens does not instill confidence, and it's AF-only. But, since it is incredibly compact, there is a place for it at times.</p>

<p>70-210/4.0-5.6D-AF - Excellent across the range, solid construction.</p>

<p>The compact size and greasy-smooth focus of the 200/4 makes it a real keeper lens.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>200/4 Ai-S, Df, 1/1000s, f5.6, ISO400:<br>

<img src="http://www.dlaab.com/photo/200_4.JPG" alt="" /></p>

[john_hinkey]

<p>I've tested and used these ~200mm lenses on my D800:<br>

200/4 AIS<br>

180/2.8 AF<br>

80-200/2.8D AFS<br>

70-200/2.8G AFS VR-II<br>

70-200/4G VR<br>

180/3.4 APO Telyt Leica R<br>

At 200mm I would rate them from best to worst as (wide open):<br>

180/3.4 APO Telyt Leica R - Pixel level sharp across the frame at 36MP at infinity - truly astonishing. Slightly less sharp at closer distances. Even is pixel level sharp on my m43 16mp cameras that have an even smaller pixel pitch. <br>

70-200/4G VR - Truly outstanding at far distances, not as good near MFD. Near MFD it shines from 70-~150mm).<br>

70-200/2.8G AFS VR-II - Excellent at all distances, though just a tad below the f/4VR for across-the frame sharpness at f/4<br>

80-200/2.8D AFS - Very very good at far distances, corners not so great. Close-up it's OK. Does not like TC's as well. Stopped down it's pretty good. Slight notch below the f/2.8G VR-II.<br>

180/2.8 AF - Adequate at far distances, corners less so. CA/PF. Not quite up to 36MP sharpness, especially the borders/corners.<br>

200/4 AIS - Not 36MP sharp at any part in the frame, less so in the corners. Lots of CA (though correctable in post fairly easily). This lens is just adequately sharp on 12MP (D700).</p>

<p>Granted I've only tested 1 sample of each. AND it also depends on what your viewing print size is. The 200/4 may be just fine for smaller sizes or non-cropped images - I've made some fine images with it and still have it (though I've not used it in quite a while).</p>