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 2.8/180mm Ai vs Ai-s
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:24 pm    Post subject: Nikkor 2.8/180mm Ai vs Ai-s Reply with quote
Hi,

a question to the Nikon experts here. As fas as I undertand there are few optical differences between these 2 lenses (Ai-S seems to have ED glasses).

Are there "great" differences - visible in terms of IQ (sharpness, bokeh etc) ? Many thanks for your assistance.

Wink


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rolf -

I may be off base here, but I believe you might be referring to the *ED version and the non-*ED version. AI and AIs only deals with the mount and an added capability for automatic aperture control (with a few models). If indeed the *ED is what you are referring to, I took a look at a couple of these 180mms (an *ED and a non-*ED) that were in the used cases in my local shop one day.

Both performed quite well and were indistinguishable from one another just in shooting there in the store. I spoke with a gentleman who has been a photographer for a long time and he actually told me he had used both for years and didn't think there was hardly any difference. He also said he had heard rumors that the *ED version really was more for lens sales than improvements of the optics. I personally didn't do enough testing though, to say for sure.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
+1 for David with ED tag is a great lens , but... I didn't find it to better than any of my old Carl Zeiss Jena lenses without any ED tags Wink I sold it after.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanky you David and Attila. Yes, I was reffering to the *ED and non-*ED version wheareas I tought that the Ai-S has the ED lenses and the Ai-Version not.

Thought that I made a mistake - because I bought a lens in the non-*ED version and thought I would be the version with ED glasses.

Thanks again for your answers.

Wink


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rolf I think with your technical skill and camera, there is no difference at all.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is possible that the AIs mount was added to the 180mm the same time Nikon decided to release the *ED version so that an AI *ED version of this lens does not exist but I cannot verify that. Best way to find out is to shoot your lens, if you find shortcomings, get your hands on an *ED version and see if you have the same issues! Like Attila said, your skill will most likely make all the difference and it sounds like you should have no issues there! Let us know, maybe post some test shots on how this lens performs. I would like to see something more than the inside of a camera store through this optic Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
With this lens, the versions are correlated. The Ai does not exist with ED glass, whereas the AiS does not exist wihout.

Compare:
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#180

Last edited by BenediktW on Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have never used the non-ED 180/2.8, but I did own a Canon FD 200/2.8, which did not have any low-dispersion elements. And the problems I had with it appeared in certain types of scenes. Brightly lit scenes where there were sharp vertical lines, I'd get severe magenta and green color fringing. Also, with the sun reflecting off a surface, such as the water or chrome, same thing -- pronounced green and magenta fringing.

My Nikkor 180 f2.8 ED showed none of these symptoms, and I've always felt that if the non-ED version were tasked to take the same sorts of photos as I'd taken with the Canon, it would behave similarly. Maybe not, but I'd be surprised if the non-ED version didn't exhibit some level of optical aberrations that are corrected with the ED version.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BenediktW wrote:
With this lens, the versions are correlated. The Ai does not exist with ED glass, whereas the AiS does not exist wihout.

Compare:
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#180


Based on those specs they are different lenses with similar optical forumla. I spent many hours recently trying to learn about the verisions.

The consensus seems to be:

non-ED is very good lens with special character.

ED version is sharper and considered one of the great nikon lenses ever.

The real enthusiasts have three versions of the MF 180, which they claim each have their place.

There is big price difference. Non-ED at least 50USD cheaper if not more.

ED is 80g lighter.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is Björn Rørslett's take (http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html), for whatever it's worth:

"Be aware that the pre-ED versions (engraved Nikkor P) of the 180/2.8 are inferior in image quality in comparison with the ED 180. Not a bad lens, but the standard of the ED is a tall order to meet."


PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Both are great. AIS should have better coatings, which will make some difference. The non 180 ED I used to have was an amazing lens but did have some flaring and a decent amount of lateral chromatic abberation. Thus while they are fine on many of the modern nikon DSLR's (which greatly reduce it), if your going to adapt this lens to other cameras I'd strongly suggest the AIS ED version.

In either case though they are known to be excellent quality lenses. I sold my 180 and bought an AF version for less!


PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kawasakiguy37 wrote:


In either case though they are known to be excellent quality lenses. I sold my 180 and bought an AF version for less!


The AF's optics are superior to the 180 ED version notwistanding it's notoriously sluggish AF but head and shoulders over the pre-ED version.

The issue of axial CA and the Nikkor 180 ED (more so with the pre-ED version) shouldn't be underplayed. It pollutes the entire frame especially in high-contrast lighting or if B&W is shot, reducing contrast. Lloyd Chambers did a review sometime ago on 180's on the D3x. While the clear winner was the Leica 180 Elmarit APO, the Nikkor 180 ED acquitted itself well in terms of resolving power but not in the ubiquitous CA's. For me, the CV180 APO has replaced it for that reason.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hey James, did you perhaps mean CZ 180, and not CV180? I don't know anything about a CV 180mm APO.

And another question just in case you meant CZ. Is the German made T* 180/2.8 different from an APO version?


PostPosted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
justtorchit wrote:
AI and AIs only deals with the mount and an added capability for automatic aperture control (with a few models).


In many/most(?) cases that's not true. The appearance of the barrel, numbers on the aperture ring and sometimes the length of the focus throw is different between AI and AI-s.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aham -

I think we are discussing syntax here and I may just have written that unclearly (or perhaps I am off base?). The AIs mount was a later development of the AI mount. Yes there are other cosmetic differences (orange number, barrel design, etc) as well as the fact that in re-releasing the AIs models of earlier lenses, Nikon may have tweaked some things to improve performance. But the "AIs" designation, refers to the ability for automatic aperture control as I have read from Nikon's own literature.

Asking "Is this "AI or AIs model better of [x lens]" the "better" will have little to do with the lens having the capabilities of an AIs technology - and more to do with dates; is the newer version better than its predecessor? Nikon's more recent refinements would have been the AIs models. Is this correct or have I still misunderstood AIs?


PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Hey James, did you perhaps mean CZ 180, and not CV180? I don't know anything about a CV 180mm APO.

And another question just in case you meant CZ. Is the German made T* 180/2.8 different from an APO version?


Cosina Voigtländer 4/180 APO.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
james wrote:
kawasakiguy37 wrote:


In either case though they are known to be excellent quality lenses. I sold my 180 and bought an AF version for less!


The AF's optics are superior to the 180 ED version notwistanding it's notoriously sluggish AF but head and shoulders over the pre-ED version.

The issue of axial CA and the Nikkor 180 ED (more so with the pre-ED version) shouldn't be underplayed. It pollutes the entire frame especially in high-contrast lighting or if B&W is shot, reducing contrast. Lloyd Chambers did a review sometime ago on 180's on the D3x. While the clear winner was the Leica 180 Elmarit APO, the Nikkor 180 ED acquitted itself well in terms of resolving power but not in the ubiquitous CA's. For me, the CV180 APO has replaced it for that reason.


Typical MFlens interesting post which sent me off to try and learn more:

"ataboy" produced this shot and made some interesting remarks at fredmiranda....Merry Christmas!!!!!!


Ataboy:
"If I am correct, there were two pre-APO versions. The first one was not too spectacular, but the second which I have (mine has serial number 324XXXX) is absolutely fabulous. Beats APO-Telyt 180/3.4 in sharpness and bokeh but of course it has more CA (still minimal). I also like it better than any other 180-200mm I tried, including Canon L zooms (don't know about primes), Zeiss, etc.
[example above] just resized and sharpened"

interesting thread on various 180s:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/850493/0#8304785

in any case the most forlorn of these is double the cost of a nice 180ED, and the telyt seems to easily fetch over 500USD


PostPosted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have always thought that the difference between AI and AIs lenses was the semi-circular notch on the back that engaged pretty much only with the FA and N2020, and that all this did was engage a program shift function. Turns out there's quite a bit more to it than that. I did a bit of googling and found this post from 2005 over at photo.net that goes into good detail:

Roland Vink , Jul 20, 2005; 09:57 p.m.

Which camera do you have? As far as I know only the FA and N2020/F501 make use of the AiS features, other cameras including F3, FE and FM series treat Ai and AiS as the same.

Technically the main difference is that there is a liniear relationship between the movement of the stop-down tab at the rear of the lens and the aperture opening. Moving the tab a known amount stops the lens to a known aperture - required for accurate exposures in shutter priority and program modes. Ai and earlier lenses don't have this. However most cameras don't offer shutter or program modes with manual lenses so the feature is somewhat redundant.

A couple of cameras (EM?, FG?) do offer these modes even with Ai lenses - they set the tab to the "correct" position, then take a stop-down reading and adjust the shutter speed if necessary.

The linear stop-down is important if you have your lens "chipped" to allow metering with AF cameras. These cameras will work in program and shutter priority with CPU lenses, but the assumption is that it has a linear stop-down aperture.

A minor difference is that AiS lenses will automatically trigger high speed program mode with the FA and F501 if the focal length is 135mm or longer.

Optically, most Ai and AiS lenses are the same - same glass, same NIC coatings. The notable difference is the 28/2.8, the AiS version has CRC and is a much better lens. Very recent AiS lenses have the newer SIC coating.

AiS lenses tend to have a shorter focus movement - this allows for quicker focusing at the expense of precision.

Here's the whole link:

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Cwhh


PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have ai version(pre-ED) don`t have time to use it in field but it seems sharp and ca-free, and very good microcontrast
F/2.8
Crop 100%
1

2



Full Photo
1


2


PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
On my monitor, the chromatic aberrations along every high-contrast border are as plain as day!! As is the purple cast best seen on the white object. Very typical for this lens.

karabud wrote:
I have ai version(pre-ED) don`t have time to use it in field but it seems sharp and ca-free, and very good microcontrast
F/2.8
Crop 100%
1



PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
james wrote:
The chromatic aberrations along high-contrast borders are as plain as day!! As is the purple cast. Very typical for this lens.


Yes, but comparing to Sonnar 180 or 200; or tele-tessar 200 3.5 this lens is excellent, btw i overexpose this photo to try make them as high as possible


PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
karabud wrote:
james wrote:
The chromatic aberrations along high-contrast borders are as plain as day!! As is the purple cast. Very typical for this lens.


Yes, but comparing to Sonnar 180 or 200; or tele-tessar 200 3.5 this lens is excellent, btw i overexpose this photo to try make them as high as possible


The Nikkor 180/2.8 ED, the AIS but especially the AF version, are sharper, have far less CA (the AF version is superior) and isn't that much more money. The AF version focuses VERY slowly and is in desperate need of an update by Nikon, assuming they believe that there is demand.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
james wrote:
karabud wrote:
james wrote:
The chromatic aberrations along high-contrast borders are as plain as day!! As is the purple cast. Very typical for this lens.


Yes, but comparing to Sonnar 180 or 200; or tele-tessar 200 3.5 this lens is excellent, btw i overexpose this photo to try make them as high as possible


The Nikkor 180/2.8 ED, the AIS but especially the AF version, are sharper, have far less CA (the AF version is superior) and isn't that much more money. The AF version focuses VERY slowly and is in desperate need of an update by Nikon, assuming they believe that there is demand.


For a 100% crop this seems to be sharp and very little ca. I compared it to my friend AF and these lenses are very similar, only difference was in better contrast against light with AF version


PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Nikkor 2.8/180mm Ai vs Ai-s Reply with quote
Rolf wrote:
As fas as I undertand there are few optical differences between these 2 lenses (Ai-S seems to have ED glasses).

Are there "great" differences - visible in terms of IQ (sharpness, bokeh etc) ? :


The AIS 180mm ED is a completely different optical design to the Nikkor-P 180mm and AI 180mm "non ED". Not sure why you think there are 'few optical differences'.



(sorry this one is so small)


There is some correlation between metering schemes and optical designs for this lens, but its not exact. If you see an AIS version on sale it will be the ED design; if you see a pre-AI or AI one it will probably be the non-ED design, but in fact the ED design was also sold as an AI lens for a short while before being updated to AIS.

Mechanical construction is excellent for both AI and AIS ED lenses, a wide, smooth, nicely damped focus ring that is a pleasure to use.

The AF design is a refinement of the AIS ED; slightly better optically at the expense of crappy plastic build quality and a thin, nasty-feeling focus ring when used in manual focus mode. I actually find it quite horrible to hold in the hand. The second version has slightly improved build quality but I haven't used one.

The AIS ED is sharper than the AI non-ED and has reduced lateral CA; however, axial CA is quite pronounced with the ED lens (same for AIS and AF versions) especially at higher contrast scenes and wider apertures. Its really very visible.

The CV Apo-Lanthar 180 f/4 improves on this, a lot, and has good build quality. The helicoid is optimised for close focus and is rather twitchy at the infinity end; the optics also seem to give better results at near and medium distances. Nasty emerald green/magenta colours, seen in the 180 ED, are much reduced (not entirely absent) in the CV 180

The Leica APO-Telyt 180mm f/3.4 is optimised for infinity (it was originally designed for surveillance). I have used it briefly and seen results from others; it looks to be excellent for distant subjects. Use on a Nikon body is possible with a mount conversion, retaining infinity focus, but loosing auto aperture.

Further reading:
version history, Nikkor 180/2.8
Nikon 1001 nights: AI Nikkor 180 mm f/2.8 ED


PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
james wrote:

The Nikkor 180/2.8 ED, the AIS but especially the AF version, are sharper, have far less CA (the AF version is superior) and isn't that much more money.


Agreed on all points, assuming by CA you mean lateral CA.

james wrote:

The AF version focuses VERY slowly and is in desperate need of an update by Nikon, assuming they believe that there is demand.


Nikon have released some updated fast primes recently (24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 200/2). In each case, the relevant zoom lens with which the prime would compete was slower (24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.Cool. It seems that Nikon believe zooms are for everyone, consumer to pro, and that the only marked for primes is pro-level, price-not-a-major-consideration fast glass.

I doubt, therefore, whether there will be an AF-S 180/2.8 despite the fact that it would have quite a different application to the expensive and heavy 200/2. And of course if they do make one, it won't have an aperture ring and won't work on extension tubes or bellows.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2