Nikkor tele zooms compared

[stevemark]

In another thread the question "Nikkor Ai 4.5/80-200mm vs Nikkor AiS 4/80-200mm" was discussed. I have compared these two lenses today, and while bein at work I have added the other well known manual focus Nikon tele zooms in the 80-200mm f4 range as well - and the famous Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200mm:

Nikkor Ai 4.5/80-200mm (1st computation)
Nikkor Ai 4.5/80-200mm (2nd computation)
Nikkor AiS 4/80-200mm
Nikon E AiS 4/70-210mm
Zeiss CY Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200mm

* All lenses were tested at infinity, using a 24 MP FF Sony A7II.
* Tested at three focal lengths (minimum [70mm or 80mm], at 135mm, and at maximum (200mm or 210mm). *
* Tested wide open (f4 or f4.5) and at f8
* Both the center and corner performance were checked

Generally speaking, the differences between those Nikon tele zooms are remarkably small.

It is true, however, that the center of the Nikkor 4/80-200mm at 200mm f4 has slightly a lower contrast than the other three Nikon tele zooms (and clearly a lower contrast than the Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm).

First a 100% crop from the center of the Nikkor AiS 4/80-200mm at 200mm f4:




Now the Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm:



The other three Nikkor / Nikon E tele zooms are closer to the Zeiss than to the AiS 4/80-200mm. If I would not have heard similar complaints about the AiS 4/80-200mm before, I might even suspect a defective sample (though mine looks great). However at other focal lengths the differences between the AiS 4/80-200 and the other Nikon tele zooms are much smaller (image center).

[stevemark]

Here are three corner crops, also taken at f=200mm and wide open - first the first computation of the Nikkor 4.5/80-200mm:



Now the later Nikkor AiS 4/80-200mm:


And finally the Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm:


I can't see much difference between the two Nikkors; the Zeiss, however, has less CAs and looks cleaner.

[caspert79]

I’ve had the 80-200/4.5 n ai in the past, and I found it quite good for everyday use; it was very cheap (considerably cheaper than the f/4 version). And from what I see here there’s not really a reason to buy the f/4; the difference in speed is negligible.

[stevemark]

The following is about corner performance wide open!

At f=135mm, again the Zeiss is clearly the best of the lenses compared here. Both the Ai 4.5/80-200mm (2nd computation) and the 4/80-200mm are next - with nearly as much resolution as the Zeiss, but a much lower contrast. The 4.5/80-200mm (1st computation) and the Nikon E 4/70-210mm have less corner resolution, but the difference is not that big.

At f=80mm (70mm) the Zeiss again has the best contrast, but slightly more CAs than the 1st computation of the Nikkor 4.5/80-200mm. While nominally both 4.5/80-200mm computations are 80mm at the short end, the 2nd computation has a shorter focal length than the first one. Apart from this, it also has a slightly reduced resolution and more CAs. The AiS 4/80-200mm is nearly as good as the Nikkor 4.5/80-200mm (I) and the Zeiss. Finally the Nikon E 4/70-210mm: At f=70mm its corners clearly have less constrast and less resolution than the other four lenses (which all start at f=80mm, BTW). The bigger zoom range (3x instead of 2.5x) comes at a price.

S

EDIT as soon as I have time I'll post the corresponding crops from all lenses

S

[flavio81]

[stevemark]

[Doc Sharptail]

There were three different variants of the f4.5 Nikkor 80-200.

The best of them is the final n=new variant, with the baffle over the rear element.
It is an optically improved variant over the two earlier lenses.

-D.S.

[cooltouch]

D.S., I have the last version of the 4.5 model, which I bought about 12 years ago. I've found it to be a very good every day zoom, and have never found the need to find anything better, although I do own at least one 80-200 that is better, but it's also much heavier, and it cost quite a bit more -- the Tamron 30A SP 80-200 f/2.8 LD. Setting the Tamron aside for the moment, though, the Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 has been regarded for years as one of the best 80-200s made and I see no reason to differ from this conclusion.

[Doc Sharptail]

In no particular order, differences between the F4 80-200 and the F4.5 80-200 N:

Zoom creep:
The F4 is the winner here by a long shot, with it's more modern construction.
My particular copy had seen little use.

Rendering:

The 4.5 is preferred by me, but this is a matter of subjective personal taste, rather than optical performance, especially for quick (sometimes wide-open) candid portraiture.

Sharpness:

The old 4.5 N clearly beats the 4 at the 80mm mark. By 200mm, they are about equal, with the 4 having slightly better edge definition wide-open.

Ergonomics:

The 4.5 is my choice here for the space it takes up in the bag.
It takes a bit of practice to get used to the slippery sliding one-touch zoom collar.
The reduction in weight is noticeable when the 4.5 is in the bag instead of the f4.

My 103-A has a very slight edge in sharpness at infinity over both at it's 210 mark, but this may not be a fair comparison due to the difference in focal length.

-D.S.