Nikon AF200mmf3.5 for F3AF

[hendy_assan]

I am contemplating to buy the Nikon F3AF autofocus lens 200mm f3.5

for use with my F4 body (the only body that can be used apart from

the F3AF itself, as far as I know, correct me if I am wrong) There

are not many reviews on the lens and would appreciate to know how

good is the lens says compare to my current 180mmf2.8 ED. What is the

current used price for it? Thanks for your inputs.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"...how good is the lens says compare to my current

180mmf2.8 ED." --Hendy Assan<br>

</em><br>

If you are a collector go for it. If not spend your money on

something more useful. You will have a hard time finding someone

with hands on experience with the 200mm f3.5 AF. <br>

<br>

Good luck,<br>

<br>

Dave.

[ShunCheung]

Since you already have a 180mm/f2.8, I am curious why you need another 200mm/f3.5. Like David said, if you are a collector who wants this rare lens, just go for it. Otherwise, for practical photography usage, there are much better options such as the 180mm you already have.

[hendy_assan]

Well actually I plan to sell off the AIS 180mm ED lens and replace it with the 200mm f3.5 lens. I know it sound foolish but the price of both are almost the same. I guess the NAS bug is hitting me suddenly. However I am not too sure how good the image quality would be with this lens.

[ShunCheung]

As far as I know, there is a lot of demand for the 200mm/f3.5 F3AF from collectors, whose primary interest is how rare an item is, and this lens also marks the beginning of the AF era. Otherwise, it is pretty unwise to trade down by 0.5 stop while paying essentially the same price. If you need AF, there are AF versions of the 180mm/f2.8. If you want to reduce weight, there is the 200mm/f4 AI-S.

 

It seems to make no sense to pay for a collector's item, which is not exactly a practical lens, unless you are a collector yourself.

[alex_lofquist]

From what I read, the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 is considered "legendary" as to sharpness and contrast. The AF 200 f/3.5 is not as sharp or particularly fast-focussing on the F4S, from anecdotal evidence. If you are interested, I'll see if I can shake down something on it. Otherwise I would echo Shun's comments.

[roland_vink]

From looking at the lens specs in a Nikon catalogue (Eyes of Nikon) the AF 200/3.5 has a similar optical design as the 300/2.8 and other IF-ED lenses of the same period. The front two elements are ED glass, while the AIS and AF 180/2.8 have only one ED element. All this points to the lens having excellent optical properties (I have not actually used one).

 

I don't expect AF performance to be as good as the current AF 180/2.8 ED, and according to this review on the F3-AF 80/2.8 it will drain the batteries quickly: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html

 

The close focus limit is a rather long 2m, compared to 1.5m for the AF 180/2.8. If you are looking for a versatile high performance telephoto, the 180/2.8 would be a better choice. Still, if you are interested in the 200/3.5 for its own sake, why not?