Review of Nikon AF Nikkor 75-240mm 1: 4.5-5.6, especially for Radozhiva, prepared Alexey Ovoshchnikov.
Nikon AF Nikkor 75-240mm 1: 4.5-5.6
Good afternoon, today in my review I want to tell you about the Nikkor AF-D 75-240 mm F 4,5-5,6 lens. This is a budget zoom telephoto lens that Nikon specifically developed for its film SLR cameras.
Main characteristics
Lens Type - Telephoto Zoom
Focal length - 75-240 mm (for Nikon DX cameras will be 112.5 - 360 mm
Zoom ratio - 3.2x
Aperture - F / 4.5-F / 5.6
Minimum aperture - F / 32 (F / 45)
Auto focus - yes
Number of elements / groups of elements - 12/9
Dimensions - 71 x 121mm
Weight - 396g (485g with lens hood)
Viewing angle - 10-31 degrees.
Closest focusing distance - 1.5 m
Filter thread diameter - 52 mm
Hood - HB 21 (not presented in the review)
The lens is discontinued. It was produced from 1999 to 2000.
The price for a BU is approximately (on the e-bay website) - $ 60-100.
All original Nikon FX telephoto lenses can be found. here.
Nikon AF Nikkor 75-240mm 1: 4.5-5.6
Just want to note the fact that the lens has long been discontinued and was produced for only one year. I have ideas about such a short release date for this model, but more on that later.
So, a lot about this lens is already clear from the very beginning, but let's take a closer look and draw final conclusions. This is a state employee made in China according to an optical scheme that has not been used either before or after. It should be noted that the previous model Nikon 80-200mm AF Nikkor 1: 4.5-5.6D was still produced in Japan. I had no experience with Nikon 80-200mm 4.5-5.6D, but I looked carefully at the photos from Arcadia's review and the conclusion is obvious. The Nikkor 75-240mm is slightly worse in sharpness than the older Nikon 80-200mm 4.5-5.6D. That is, most likely, the lens from this review is a sad experience of transferring production to China and excessive reduction in the price of products. These conclusions are confirmed by the quality of the resulting image. The appeared range of 200-240 mm lathers the picture more, and it must be used carefully. I want to clarify that I bought this lens for a symbolic price two years ago. This is actually my first telephoto autofocus lens. Taking off on D90I was generally happy with the quality of the images. I didn't have another telephoto lens then. Very soon I bought a Nikkor 70-300mm 1: 4-5.6G and everything got much better with it. The disadvantage of the monitored Nikkor 75-240mm lens is unstable sharpness at different focal lengths. It is difficult to say whether it was like this from the beginning, or whether it loosened up during many years of operation.
The external design of the lens is very poor, there is no indication of the focusing distance at all, not to mention the absence of a mark for working in IR. Although in fairness I will add that now manufacturers have taken the path of minimalism in this kind of designations and generally abolish them on budget lenses. Focal lengths are marked with values of 75, 85, 105, 135, 200 and 240 mm, respectively. The lens was produced in black only. It is possible to use the original circular hood by installing it in special grooves near the light filter thread.
Constructive and usability
Nikon AF Nikkor 75-240mm 1: 4.5-5.6
The lens is very light because it is made of plastic entirely. Reliability is not a concern when used carefully. After many hours of operation, there was not a single jamming of the zoom and focus mechanisms. However, the lens was not designed for frequent and long-term use and it is felt that the effort when the zoom ring is rotated is not uniform. The zoom ring is coated with a hard rubber pad. The full stroke of the zoom ring is approximately 90 degrees.
Nikon AF Nikkor 75-240mm 1: 4.5-5.6
The manual focus ring is located near protective filter and completely plastic, but wide enough for easy rotation. The ring rotates very easily. Focus ring travel is approximately 60 degrees. During focusing, the front lens rotates and extends forward along with the lens barrel. The autofocus speed is average, suitable for portrait or landscape photography, but will not pull the shooting of a dynamic report. When using the lens on a full frame, I noticed a nasty tendency to often refocus under normal conditions. The focusing of the lens is fairly accurate, but not fast and not always predictable.
Auto focus only works with cameras that have a focus motor, a complete list can be viewed here.
Nikon AF Nikkor 75-240mm 1: 4.5-5.6
This lens also has an aperture control ring. For the lens to start working normally on modern Nikon cameras, you need to set the F / 32 value using the aperture control ring on the lens itself and fix it with a special lever (it is orange in color, it is easy to find on the lens near the aperture control ring). After this manipulation, you can control the diaphragm from the camera, like with modern lenses. The lens transmits the focusing distance, and there should be no problem when using it with modern Nikon SpeedLight flashes.
Nikon AF Nikkor 75-240mm 1: 4.5-5.6
In the manufacture of lenses, multi-enlightenment was used, that is, the lens should work better in backlight. The front lens shimmers in green. The lens uses a seven-blade aperture. In the blur zone, almost regular circles form from light sources.
A few purely technical shots for demonstrating light sources in the blur zone.
Nikon AF Nikkor 75-240mm 1: 4.5-5.6 on aperture
Nikon AF Nikkor 75-240mm 1: 4.5-5.6 on aperture
Nikon AF Nikkor 75-240mm 1: 4.5-5.6 on aperture
Nikon AF Nikkor 75-240mm 1: 4.5-5.6 on aperture
The lens has its own nice bokeh. After looking at portrait photos and reviews of other photographers about this lens, and comparing with my experience and impressions, I came to the conclusion that the lens can be used for a portrait. I found on my hard drive just portraits taken with a camera Nikon D90 long before writing a review. After looking at these photos two years later, I was pleased with how everything came out on this lens. I would like to immediately note the bad ratio of successful / unsuccessful frames when shooting. This is due to unstable sharpness at carved focal lengths. I do not bring such unsuccessful shots in the gallery, but believe me, the lens often fails me, which is called out of the blue.
Gallery of photos. Full frame Nikon D600
Source archive available at this link.
Photo gallery. APS-C Nikon D90
Source archive available at this link.
Сonclusion
This is not a very successful telephoto lens, it was produced for a very short time, today it is rare, it costs like the newer Nikkor 70-300 mm f4-5,6 G. Based on this, it is difficult to recommend it to anyone. Look at the photos in full quality and be sure to express your reasoned opinion in the comments.
You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.
Thanks for the review. Nothing else was expected from this lens.
Nothing bad is visible in the photo. Unless, the exposure errors of the camera, where there is underexposure. Well, the lens has nothing to do with it.
did not see anything wrong in image quality
Thanks for the review.
I don’t see a critical defect in the picture, nevertheless the general “cheapness” of the image is sharply felt in comparison, for example, with the same 80-200 / 2.8D. So-so micro-contrast, poor sharpness, no color rendition. At the time of the production of this lens, there may not have been comparable in price alternatives, but now - about the same picture is obtained from almost any superzoom. Those. putting on such a lens on a new full-frame camera (of course, expensive and heavy, because there are no cheap and light ones now, there were 20 years ago) you thereby downgrade its image quality to a soap dish 5-10 times cheaper and almost as much lighter ... Moreover, the zoom range will be much smaller.
Is that bokeh is the only consolation prize.
PS And on the crop - everything will be even sadder because of even less sharpness.
On crop, everything will be as it is in the review) Photos on the D90 are available for viewing in high resolution.
Of course I'm not talking about a 12-year-old crop with fairly large pixels, but at least a relatively modern crop camera, which, as a rule, has 24 MP on board.
Modern ones don't have a low pass filter. In addition, the pixel size is judged by simply dividing the matrix area by their number. In fact, the area of the photosensitive element differs from this calculated value (in addition to the sensor, there are also auxiliary elements and tracks that are placed on the chip and they take up more space for the old technical process). I'm not talking about different physical characteristics of the same sensors of different generations. Therefore, it is not at all a fact that any D3300 in sharpness will not be ahead of the D90.
Valentine, I don’t want to sound rude, but you didn’t understand the issue at all before starting to oppose. Roughly speaking, I'm talking about Thomas - you're talking about Erema. Perhaps this is also part of my fault, because in the previous post I allowed myself a somewhat simplified characterization of the matrix.
In fact, the area of the photosensitive element is not important in the context of the obtained physical resolution, the density of pixels (in pieces per unit area) is important - and this is pure arithmetic.
The absence of a low-pass filter in this particular case under consideration will also have no practical value. To simplify again, this lens simply will not produce such high frequencies that this filter can begin to influence.
A pairwise comparison of the D90 and D3300 might clear up your doubts. A couple of years ago, I watched at the same time how the D70 - D90 - D3300 were being practiced with simple whales. Lenses with F24-4 did not have any special problems with 5.6MP, but then, with comparable dimensions, the picture with 24MP (despite the fact that I was also skeptical about them) seemed to me better. I closed this topic for myself then, because for real photography, it seems to me, well, it is very secondary.
Doubts? I have no doubt whatsoever.
I’ll ask you straight: Valentine, have you ever dealt with low price glass film?
Yes, it was. And I understand what you are talking about and in which direction you are leaning. You can only be convinced with this lens in practice - you won't try at 24MP next to 12MP, you won't understand. I am inclined that it will not get worse. You think it will be worse. Whatever we count is not important, as long as there are no paired frames.
I changed Kenon 1100d to 650d. And something I noticed on the advantages of a bold pixel. The new camera gives a more juicy and sharp. A picture with the same lenses ..
Good day ! Thanks for the comments. The fact that the photos are not bad is just a careful selection of the best shots) Yes, and bokeh is the only thing that you might like in this lens, as you correctly noted. If anyone else has experience using this lens (preferably on a number) then share your impressions. People and I are interested.
You are talking to Muncho :)
Hello everybody!
I am the owner of this lens :)
Acquired about 4 years ago.
I really needed a budget tele zoom.
I came across an ad (price 900UAH.)
I tried to find a review or feedback on the lens…. found nothing.
I decided to take it at my own peril and risk.
When buying, I checked autofocus, sharpness. Outwardly, it looked like new.
Arriving home, I began to test more thoroughly ...
So I share my impressions of this lens. (Nikon d80, d600 camera)
1. I liked the accurate and relatively fast autofocus (on the focal 200-240 a bit soft)
2. Bokeh in natural light is simply gorgeous at long focus.
3. The color rendition is decent, in comparison with the whale 18-55, 75-240 - super color :)))
4. Very light, like a toy :)
5. It sits comfortably in the hand, the zoom ring is so wide that you can zoom in with the whole palm :)))
6.Perfectly focuses in low light, but it is better to use it for shooting during the day, as the aperture is a bit small.
7. Used for shooting concerts, so in conjunction with nikon d80 it turns out superZoom!
I did not notice much difference with the DX and FX cameras.
If you need a wider angle - I put the lens on the FX camera (d600) and if you need the length, then - DX (d80)
All in all, a good lens for a ridiculous price.