jett
Well-known
I'm looking for an inexpensive tele. Application, I don't know. I figure that i should get one to figure out some creative application for. More landscape, not so much portraits (way too long for my taste).
I don't care for speed but it is always beneficial to have it for faster shutter speeds, low light, and ease of focusing.
I haven't looked at the prices too closely but they both seem fairly inexpensive. I don't care for ai vs non-ai. The practical reason for me wanting the 200mm is for the filter thread but is the 180mm a noticeably better lens or more cumbersome one to carry?
I don't care for speed but it is always beneficial to have it for faster shutter speeds, low light, and ease of focusing.
I haven't looked at the prices too closely but they both seem fairly inexpensive. I don't care for ai vs non-ai. The practical reason for me wanting the 200mm is for the filter thread but is the 180mm a noticeably better lens or more cumbersome one to carry?
Ronald M
Veteran
I have a 200 Ai and 180 2.8 AF. The 200 is reasonably sharp at 4 if you can get it to focus. I miss 98 times out of 100. I thought the lens was defective, until I managed to get a few sharp. I have no trouble with 135 2.8 or 300 4.o. Thee seems to be just something difficult. 5.6 and smaller are ok 100%. It seems to be a very strange lens
180 2.8 AF s is easy to focus, any stop , any distance, manual or auto.
This is from a Nikon Digital. The focus screens are all calibrated to perfect adjustment .
Two have the Katz Eye screen, one is DX, one FX. The others are stock screens. I have never tried it with film.
180 2.8 AF s is easy to focus, any stop , any distance, manual or auto.
This is from a Nikon Digital. The focus screens are all calibrated to perfect adjustment .
Two have the Katz Eye screen, one is DX, one FX. The others are stock screens. I have never tried it with film.
dabick42
Well-known
Check out Bjorn Rorslett's lens evaluation site.
I own the following, so offer my personal thoughts :-
200 f4 Nikkor Q non-AI, circa 1963 :
Beautifully made, quite long and a little cumbersome, weighs 600 grms.
Good but not bitingly sharp images. Built-in hood.
52 mm filter. Very cheap.
200 f4 Nikkor AI, circa1979 :
Solid build, smaller and lighter than earlier version. Built-in hood.
Excellent sharpness.
52 mm filter, Not overly expensive.
180 f2.8 ED AIS, circa 1983 :
Truly beautiful lens. Larger and heavier ( 830 grms ) than the above lenses. Built-in hood.
Sharp enough to draw blood from your eyeballs !
72 mm filter. Optically the best of the bunch.
Tends to be expensive.
There ya go - the choice is yours,, !
I own the following, so offer my personal thoughts :-
200 f4 Nikkor Q non-AI, circa 1963 :
Beautifully made, quite long and a little cumbersome, weighs 600 grms.
Good but not bitingly sharp images. Built-in hood.
52 mm filter. Very cheap.
200 f4 Nikkor AI, circa1979 :
Solid build, smaller and lighter than earlier version. Built-in hood.
Excellent sharpness.
52 mm filter, Not overly expensive.
180 f2.8 ED AIS, circa 1983 :
Truly beautiful lens. Larger and heavier ( 830 grms ) than the above lenses. Built-in hood.
Sharp enough to draw blood from your eyeballs !
72 mm filter. Optically the best of the bunch.
Tends to be expensive.
There ya go - the choice is yours,, !
Noserider
Christiaan Phleger
I'll get to quote myself from an APUG discussion about this lens choice, at
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/112750-nikon-recommendations.html
"I've got multiple lenses of all the versions of the 180: P, P.C, ED and AF. All are fine lenses. I'd go first with the ED version, simply spectacular. The AF might be better closer up and the internal focus makes it a fast handling lens, but for the money the ED can't be beat. Amazing image quality: I just posted a shot done with one of mine at http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/11...-nikkor-180mm/
However, the 180 and in particular the P.C is a real sleeper. Very sharp especially mid-distances, more color fringing closer in and further away wider open on digital but digital shows lots of this anyway on longer older lenses and software tweaks can handle it well. The P version had a reduced multi-coating, and after Pentax went nuts on promoting their Super Multicoating Nikon had to follow suit and offer lenses with additional multi-coating, and that became the P.C version. Both are fine, the C version handles backlit, flat light and strong colors better, but the P has a certain delicacy to B&W images, a lovely portrait lens for the ladies if you can use a lens that long. Both can be found for very little money, and as medium distance tele's they certainly shine, you'll probably be only limited by your tripod use and atmospheric clarity for optimum sharpness. The ED edges both these by a decent amount but not SO much that the P or P.C are unusable, if you're doing mostly B&W and some color print and slide you'll hardly notice.
Also, don't knock those Pro used thrashed lenses in this length, I've picked up a few amazing deals just because the cosmetics were fairly beat, but the Pro use a filter religiously and consequently the glass was nearly mint, and one I got like this (an ED version) has the most smooth focusing, loose but so smooth, you could tell some shooter used it every day. I think I got it for 35.00 on ebay, a true bargain. Keep your eyes out...."
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/112750-nikon-recommendations.html
"I've got multiple lenses of all the versions of the 180: P, P.C, ED and AF. All are fine lenses. I'd go first with the ED version, simply spectacular. The AF might be better closer up and the internal focus makes it a fast handling lens, but for the money the ED can't be beat. Amazing image quality: I just posted a shot done with one of mine at http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/11...-nikkor-180mm/
However, the 180 and in particular the P.C is a real sleeper. Very sharp especially mid-distances, more color fringing closer in and further away wider open on digital but digital shows lots of this anyway on longer older lenses and software tweaks can handle it well. The P version had a reduced multi-coating, and after Pentax went nuts on promoting their Super Multicoating Nikon had to follow suit and offer lenses with additional multi-coating, and that became the P.C version. Both are fine, the C version handles backlit, flat light and strong colors better, but the P has a certain delicacy to B&W images, a lovely portrait lens for the ladies if you can use a lens that long. Both can be found for very little money, and as medium distance tele's they certainly shine, you'll probably be only limited by your tripod use and atmospheric clarity for optimum sharpness. The ED edges both these by a decent amount but not SO much that the P or P.C are unusable, if you're doing mostly B&W and some color print and slide you'll hardly notice.
Also, don't knock those Pro used thrashed lenses in this length, I've picked up a few amazing deals just because the cosmetics were fairly beat, but the Pro use a filter religiously and consequently the glass was nearly mint, and one I got like this (an ED version) has the most smooth focusing, loose but so smooth, you could tell some shooter used it every day. I think I got it for 35.00 on ebay, a true bargain. Keep your eyes out...."
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I have the 180mm AF lens and it is my all time favorite...
Graham Line
Well-known
Every Nikon user should shoot with a 180/2.8 at some point in their life. Nothing quite like it, but there's no denying they are heavy.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
The 180/2.8 AF-D is fantastic. A bit heavy, but worth every ounce of it.
rbsinto
Well-known
I got my 180 2.8 ED AIS about 25 years ago, and I think it is the sharpest of any and all lenses (Nikon and third-party) I've ever owned.
And today, the manual focus versions can be had for a song. One of the truly great photo bargains of our time.
Oh. And cumbersome?? Not at all.
And today, the manual focus versions can be had for a song. One of the truly great photo bargains of our time.
Oh. And cumbersome?? Not at all.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I certainly like my AI 200 f/4 Nikkor. From the comment above, the 180 f/2.8 sounds very interesting.
sailor
Well-known
I have no experience of the 180mm f2.8 but I recently acquired an AI 200mm f4 very cheaply and it is an excellent lens. Unlike a previous poster I find it easy to focus. Here are a couple from the trial roll. Kodak Ektar 100 and Nikon F2.
Peebles by Elmer Duck, on Flickr
Peebles by Elmer Duck, on Flickr
Peebles by Elmer Duck, on Flickr
Peebles by Elmer Duck, on Flickr
ktmrider
Well-known
Both Great
Both Great
Have owned both. The 180 was the go to lens for available light high school football back when I worked for a newspaper. If memory serves, it cost 2.5x the 200 but worth every penny. The 200 was pretty much standard if there was enough light. So heavy for available light or much lighter for daytime use.
Both Great
Have owned both. The 180 was the go to lens for available light high school football back when I worked for a newspaper. If memory serves, it cost 2.5x the 200 but worth every penny. The 200 was pretty much standard if there was enough light. So heavy for available light or much lighter for daytime use.