Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Nikkor 4/200 AI
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:53 pm    Post subject: Nikkor 4/200 AI Reply with quote
I have put a set of test photos with the Nikkor 4/200 AI on 350D to http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos350d_n200.html . The Nikkor is a reasonably good lens for the price, which is considerably lower than that of a 4/180 Elmar-R. There is some CA and purple fringing, slightly more than the Elmar exhibits. The bokeh can be somewhat distractive, especially when there is OOF CA, but it can also be a reasonably good "modern type" bokeh.

Veijo


PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
NIce set of shots, Veijo. I have now become familiar with the University and harbour of Helsinki, so that should I come there it will seem like a comeback! Very Happy

In my own 200mm test, the Nikkor-AI 4/200 didn't fare well, arriving last in my roster after the CZJ 200, Jupiter-21M, and Pentacon 4/200 in the order. But perhaps my copy of the Nikkor was not a good one.

By the way, nice that Creative Commons license type.

_


PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice shots.

The older Nikkor Q 200mm is well worth a try. Dirt cheap and pretty good bokeh. I've not noticed much fringing but getting handheld shots above 5.6 is tricky at the moment.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had a couple of them all was very good lens especially for their price. Nice series always good tho see your cathedral and blue sky.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

In my own 200mm test, the Nikkor-AI 4/200 didn't fare well, arriving last in my roster after the CZJ 200, Jupiter-21M, and Pentacon 4/200 in the order.


My preference order at 180-200mm is: the 4/180 APO-Lanthar is the clear winner, the 4/180 Elmar-R comes second with some CA but a tad less than the rest, then a group of three lenses with no very clear order, i.e. the CZJ 200, the 2.8/180 Jupiter-6 and this Nikkor 200 with relatively minor differences between them. The CZJ might behave slightly better than the other two in the group and the Nikkor slightly worse, but without very rigorous additional testing I wouldn't put them in a definite order. However, the Nikkor is relatively cheap, easier to find on the market than the other two and very much lighter to carry around.

Quote:
By the way, nice that Creative Commons license type.


Yes, I figured it suits my needs and preferences better than any other alternative from completely public domain to a strict copyright.

Veijo


PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wonder whether the less contrasty nature of the Nikkor Q 200mm compared to the Nikkor AI 200mm accounts for it showing less fringing on digital sensors?


PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I didn't find any difference beetween them.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Throw in the nikkor 180/2.8 and you will see a great difference.

patrickh


PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikkor 180 is different ,lot better lens.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Nikkor 180 is different ,lot better lens.


No wonder about that the Nikkor 180 is the Olympia Sonnar in disguise Smile


PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's interesting the different views on the older 4 elements in four groups versus the later 5 in 5 200mm Nikkors. Bj?rn R?rslett (whose subjective views I generally agree with) doesn't rate the older 4 element design very highly, but really likes the later design. I think the older design has the edge on digital, whilst most people here seem to see little difference. The wonderful world of lenses Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio

When I get to try my Sonnar 180/2,8 I'll let you know what I think


patrickh


PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Richard_D wrote:
I wonder whether the less contrasty nature of the Nikkor Q 200mm compared to the Nikkor AI 200mm accounts for it showing less fringing on digital sensors?


There might be a slight difference. Anyway, the fringing with the 200 AI is rather minor and wouldn't probably be disturbing on any normal sized prints, i.e. up to 8 x 12. The CA is more problematic, but so it is with most modern non-APO lenses longer than 100 mm.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Nikkor 180 is different ,lot better lens.


It certainly is better, but it also is more expensive and somewhat heavier. I have come to prefer these lighter lenses, which mostly perform well enough for everyday, practical photography. Unless I had the f/4 lenses, I'd certainly be using the 5.6/200 Tele-Takumar more, a lot more, now there is no real need for that.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Veijo has right in most situation the lighter lens is better choice, if anybody walked hours with heavy lens that guy exactly know why Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1