Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 200mm 1: 4 (AI) lens review specifically for Radozhiva, prepared Alexey Ovoshchnikov.
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 200mm 1: 4 (AI)
Hello to the readers of the blog! This time I prepared a review of an interesting and rare lens for Nikon cameras and I want to add this information to the site’s knowledge box.
I recently got this lens, but already participated in the shooting and immediately really liked it! This is an old fixed-focus macro lens, the full name is Nikon Micro Nikkor 200 mm f / 4 IF Ai.
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 200mm 1: 4 (AI)
Specifications:
- Optical design: 9 elements in 6 groups. View diagram view
- Focal lengths: 200 mm in full frame (300 mm for Nikon DX).
- F / 4 maximum aperture
- Minimum Aperture f / 32
- Field of view: 11.9 °
- Number of aperture blades: 9
- Minimum focusing distance: 71 cm
- Maximum magnification: 0,5 (1/2)
- Autofocus drive: no (manual focus only)
- Thread Diameter: 52 mm
- Weight: 823 gram
- Length: 180 mm
- hood: telescopic retractable fixed.
- Years of production of this version of AI: from 1978 to 1982 (version from review)
- Years of production AI-S versions: from 1982 to 2005 (almost the same lens)
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 200mm 1: 4 (AI)
So, consider the lens and its history in more detail. You may already have noticed that the lens has been discontinued a long time ago and belongs to the archived Nikon Nikkor optics models. We can also note a not very long release time of this lens, only 5 years. Many models of his optics Nikon produces and successfully sells ten, fifteen, or even longer! Let's look back and try to understand what this lens turned out to be, what it gave to users back in 1978, and for what and why it was replaced.
It is a fact that this is Nikon's first 200 mm macro lens. Searches did not help me find an older Nikon macro 200. If someone still finds an older archival model of this type, then write about it in the comments.
The second similar lens (Nikon Micro Nikkor 200 mm f / 4 IF AI-S) Practical copies the main characteristics of this lens and can be considered together with my AI version from this review. In fact, the well-known English-speaking photographer Ken Rockwell did the same in his review. The difference is that it has a newer version (AI-S) and he adds the old (AI) version to the review, and I do the opposite. It follows from this that this lens was not produced for 5 years, but for as many as 27 years! From 1978 to 2005. Agree an impressive deadline!
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 200mm 1: 4 (AI)
An interesting fact is that Nikon, offering this Micro Nikkor 200 mm f / 4, expanded its line of macro lenses with newer and better models with new optical circuits and autofocus. I was expanding it, and this old lens was slowly selling too.
As for the cost of this lens, I will give general data. The e-bay website is a fairly objective source of information on the prices of old lenses. This site is accessible to everyone and there is always everything there. You can purchase a copy in good condition from $ 150 + shipping cost.
Why did this lens occupy its specific niche for so long and not be discontinued? This is the picture and ergonomics of this lens, which determine its scope of use. From what I saw with my own eyes and received as a result of working with this lens, I can conclude that this macro lens is not so macro by modern standards. The resolution is certainly good, but below modern professional standards. For a long time there is a super modern Nikon AF-S Micro Nikkor 105 mm f / 2.8 G IF ED VR, and it is better suited for operational work! With it, you have autofocus for quick and most important accurate focusing, with it you have an image stabilizer that prevents blur, the optical circuit has special elements that make the picture technically better. Once upon a time there is a Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 200 mm f / 4 D IF ED with autofocus and special low-dispersion elements in the optical circuit. It should also be noted that the prices of modern Nikon macro lenses with focal lengths from 105 mm, even in the secondary market, do not fall below $ 500, and not every amateur can afford them.
So what's the catch of the Nikon Micro Nikkor 200 mm f / 4 IF Ai, if not the killer sharpness that many expect primarily from a macro lens? The first chip in the picture in the portrait. Yes ... it’s in the portrait. In order not to be unfounded, I give several portrait photographs as an example.
This lens spiritualizes the picture with its smoothness and this is the main feature.
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 200mm 1: 4 (AI)
Usability on modern Nikon cameras
The second feature is ergonomics, a bit unusual, but still very convenient. It is convenient to use the lens as much as it can be convenient in principle with a manual body fix.
I used this lens paired with Nikon D600 и D800 that is, we see the picture in full frame as intended by the developer and without any crop. There are still photos from cropped Nikon D300. The lens always behaves completely adequately, and there are no glitches and errors in working with the camera. Exposure metering always suits me, the aperture runs correctly and closes to the set value.
The Nikon Micro Nikkor 200 mm f / 4 IF Ai lens has an amazing manual focus ring. It is simply incredibly smooth, you can rotate in both directions with minimal effort. What you could understand how smooth it is, the easiest way to imagine that you rotate the air ... the efforts are just miserable. However, nothing is loose and does not go by itself, the ring always remains in the position in which you tuned it. I haven’t seen a single lens with such an ultra-light focus focus ring! And this despite the fact that the focus ring is wide and comfortable. The location of the focus ring is such that it is convenient for you to control the position of the lens, and you will avoid unnecessary blur. One turn at infinity (hard stop) is well implemented.
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 200mm 1: 4 (AI)
In this photo, the lens is presented without its standard tripod foot. Unfortunately, the lens came to me without it. The lens is light enough for its 200 mm and with a camera D600 Does not outweigh or create inconvenience. Of course, with modern cropped cameras like Nikon D3300 and canon D100 the lens will outweigh. This lens is very easy to install and works great on any Canon DSLR! All you need is a simple adapter called AI - EOS, that is, the Nikon-Canon adapter. I purchased such an adapter on the AliExpress website.
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 200mm 1: 4 (AI)
So, a gallery of photos and my best wishes to readers.
Crop
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 200mm 1: 4 (AI)
If you have something to discuss, then write in the comments, for this you do not need any registration on the site. The review was prepared by Alexey Ovoshchnikov.
You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.
Thanks for the review. Interesting thing.
Canon 100D typo still
NIKKOR 200 \ 2,8 seems to me more interesting. And this despite the fact that with excellent bokeh it gives a sharper picture.
Mikhail, there is no sharper picture than special makrushnikov (this lens is among them). With all due respect, 200 / 2.8 is resting. Simply, during testing it was not fulfilled MAIN CONDITION: All the pictures in the review must be taken using the STAND! And, this, because no one adheres.
A tripod will not help a manual fix, in which the sharpness is due to the accuracy of the guidance. In the portrait, sharpness is not in front of the eyes, for example.
Macriki are not the sharpest lenses. At Canon, for example, expensive telefixes are among the harshest. Type 300 / 2.8, 600/4, etc. 85 / 1.4 most recent. Sharpness is an important parameter of a macro lens, but critical for it are the curvature of the field (as flat as possible), sharpness across the entire field, and good performance on MDF. Yes, it will most likely be sharper than most comparable price zooms, but no more. If memory serves me, 135 / 2L showed better sharpness in tests than 100 / 2.8L macro.
Here in the gallery there are quite a few frames at short exposures, all the sharpness is visible there. By the way, frames with shutter speeds slower than 1/200 are sharp. I chose carefully and did not miss the blurry photos in the review.
“All” sharpness? and at what apertures were the frames taken? it is not for nothing that the lens has a minimum aperture of 32 !! which is mainly present in “micro” nikkors .. to see a normal test, for example, a small object, shot at different apertures, down to the minimum value, in order to evaluate exactly “all” sharpness
It seems that Nikon has not had a 200 / 2.8 class fix in history
Now, there is only 180 mm 1: 2,8 ED. He is very good and also very high sharpness.
"The lens enlivens the picture with its smoothness" sounds like "fills the picture with meaning with its distortion" or "brings notes of creative individuality with its chemically aberrations"
* chromatic
Wrong, of course. Thanks to Arkady for correcting. 80 - 200, of course. Only in what does he lose (“.. rest”)?
All 80-200 have worse sharpness by 200 mm, the bokeh is different (good but less interesting), but there is no freezing like on many old fixes.
Fridging is affected mainly by faster lenses with a simple optical design. The same PLANAR, for example.
No) Not only the old ones, but rather all but the newest fixed lenses have fringing. And the F4 is a high aperture for a focal length of 200 mm.
Canon 200 / 1.8 smiles quietly aside)))
Sitting on such a moshne (200 rubles on the secondary) still would not smile.)
Become me. I wanted a lita ... ʼ
Comments before the photo. Riskyness in macro mode (coma) - yakisna. Portraits - so so, for macros, assets - weak. The accuracy of the exposition is 4 bali. Bagato frames - either under- or overexposed.
Nikkor AF 180mm f2.8D Vesch)))
All frames are blurry or the lens is really that kind of weird. The new 200mm macro just rolls over with its sharpness and generally optical characteristics, and the old one was probably not what Nikon used to produce in those days.
you have either a very small screen on your phone or something with vision.
I have a very large screen on the desktop and my eyesight is also fine.
Take a look at the photos with flowers on the D3100 + macro rings. There the scale is at least 1 to 1 or even more. Of course, this is the limit for this lens, but the sharpness in it is enough for such difficult subjects.
There, it seems, the case is stupid in the hole, the diffmelo has already climbed, it is visible on small details - such as hairs on bee legs.
Detailing is quite enough, but you don't need to clamp too much ...
It would be very interesting to see the review of Arcadia on the legendary Micro Nikkor 200F4 ED AF
My friend has one - he says that Nikon has the most magical glass in general and is considered one of the sharpest 200mm glasses in general in the world. And the build quality is unmatched. It's a pity the prices are very perplexing to personally buy it into the collection (
Good sharpness is given with 8, but in general for its money - super. It seems to be more sharply than 80-200 by 200, but this is not surprising.
The writing style reminded me of a school essay, no offense 😊
Not bad at all. For macro, you probably need more depth of field, otherwise macro portraits are obtained :)
And from the inside, is it pasted over with something black, warm and soft? I haven’t seen this for a long time ... Now they’re not particularly worried about reducing glare.
Pasted with velvety material. Most likely to protect against dust. When this lens came to me there was a lot of dust and villi, but the lenses themselves remained clean after many years. A retractable hood is glued with the same material.
Thank you very much, Alexey, for such an interesting and thorough review. An abundant selection of photographs shows both the merits and some ... mmm ... features of the lens. In my opinion, glass has been produced for a long time, so its resolution is lower than that of modern counterparts. Hence the somewhat reduced contrast and such softness of the contours (someone will say: not sharp enough; others will blame: they say, soap glass; still others will start blaming the photographer altogether: they say, they did not get into focus). But the owner and lover of such a device will take into account all these features to the extent that his photographic experience allows him. The undoubted plus of the lens is its budget price. More modern ones are much more expensive. Thanks again.
He thought about buying this model. But on e-buy is dumb to buy. What if they send a scratched copy? Or when forwarding, they’ll break it, God forbid.
Colleagues, did someone buy shipping lenses? Share your experience. What are the chances of getting a defective lens?
Thank you, but everything is as you wrote. Regarding the purchase. Personally, I buy everything on the spot, but e-bay is a good site for the buyer. There usually the buyer is always right. But e-bay prices are often bullied by such lenses. They are already considered rare and even claim to be considered collectible. Do you just shoot macro or like a picture of this lens?
Thank you for your reply. It's just that I'm looking for a long-focus lens with aperture of 4. And with an adequate price. For shooting portraits indoors, at concerts, and so on, so that the ISO on the device does not bully much. And I liked this model. I will hunt him - sometimes it appears. ;)
This wonderful lens is better for you. https://radojuva.com/2011/12/nikon-70-210-mm-f-4-af-review/
Thanks again! I will definitely study it. And great shots.
Alexander, you really asked for advice on lenses on e-Bay - I advise: I have been buying on e-Bay for a long time, since 2013, including buying glass. I always got what was stated by the seller. Reputation is valued on this site! Therefore, it is important to study and understand ALL information on the proposed lens and on the seller (if he is unfamiliar to you), the more there is, the more attractive the lot. Damage during transportation by the site is insured, money back is possible. Packaging, if desired, is negotiated with the seller. I repeat: on e-Bay, the main thing is the choice of goods from a seller with a good reputation, for photographic products - preferably not random, but with a store. In seller reviews, explore negative and neutral. Look not only reviews, but also his other products on sale.
By the way, only on e-Bay have I come across photo shops that asked not to disturb customers with ratings below 99,8!
THANKS to the author of the article for his enthusiasm and attitude to the subject :)
great review. Especially c3pro, pleases with color.
on finepix you need to clean the matrix))))
Cool lens. I shot this for several years (though with the AIs version, but there is almost no difference). Then I switched to a similar maker from a competitor :) - Canon FD 200/4 Macro. Canon can do 1: 1 macro without rings, Nikon only 1: 2. It is interesting that Canon 200 has normal macro focusing, not IF like Nikon. Perhaps we could not make IF at a distance of up to 1: 1 macro, since the same Canon FD 200/4 FDn (not macro) quite has internal focusing.
PS The native tripod ring-clamp from Micro-Nikkor 200/4 is lying, do not you need it by chance?
Of course you need, but most likely you are too far from me.
are you not in Ukraine? then probably yes, far :)
Judging by the pictures, not in Ukraine (looks like France). Thanks to Alexey for the review and nice photos. A bit of criticism - in many photos there is a tilt to the left, with the idea, it seems, is not connected in any way.
Yes, nothing was aligned anywhere so as not to form a frame.
Oh, I apologize in advance for the criticism. But the article is very difficult to read, you need to work on the syllable. For example, similar moments with repetitions: “Still very CONVENIENT. It is CONVENIENT to use the lens as much as it can be CONVENIENT ”… but after all, not everyone can be comfortable using the lens as it was convenient for you!
The first "trick" is in the picture in the portrait (and what exactly? In super sharpness, since it is a "micro" lens or in the fact that it blurs the background? This is how any long-focus lens does exactly the same), and right there on in the second photo, the portrait is completely out of focus (I understand, it is difficult for manual ones to get into the eye, but why post such a photo as an example of the super capabilities of the lens?)
To summarize briefly - the first feature, the portrait (as I understand it, it should be sharp, refuted by your own photographs.
Second, ergonomics and a smooth focusing ring? dubious and very subjective. Give other, more weighty chips)
The only thing that pleased me was the macro shots of insects. Here you can really appreciate the convenience of using the lens (that you can shoot from a distance, and not resting the lens against a bee)
You wrote about how it seemed to you on a cursory or apparently inexperienced examination. I do not know why it works out this way. Maybe you are looking at a lot of information about different lenses and their characteristics and this is mixing up in your mess? It's okay if you get caught up in theory and look at everything in a chaotic manner. You sum up some results there)) you write like this ... The first feature is a portrait, but you understand that it should be sharp, firstly, moderately sharp, and secondly you write that this is refuted by my photographs… did you look them well? There are no originals here! Ouch! How did you manage to estimate the maximum sharpness in the photos resized from 24 to XNUMX MPixels? You just understand that we are here on the site of amateur photographers and if I write that the photos are sharp and you see it on the resize, then I am definitely not deceiving you. Why should I do this)))? Many commentators here are skeptics. What for? I'm not fooling anyone. The first photo in the gallery. Every single hair is visible. The second picture is the sharpness on the eyelashes and we can see each eyelash. HA is also visible. At such crossings, you can see them very well. You can shoot as profitable as possible, or you can shoot naturally. I do not want many to get fired up with buying this lens and then be disappointed with the purchase. Then the second you talk about ergonomics. Are you comparing manual with autofocus or what? Not yes autofocus itself focuses, but manual only with hands. A smooth and wide ring is always more comfortable than a narrow and tight one ... Why everyone who has personally tried the first and the second will understand this so. But you argue with that too. And how I write, someone does not like it. Well, I'm not a writer and reading me is not as easy as listening to advertisements on TV and reading professionally written advertising reviews. I use my own words and phrases, and I am not a humanitarian. I myself love the brevity in the description, but somehow I dilute my honest impressions of an experienced amateur photographer. I do it carefully. A very detailed answer comes out to your comment, and I hope you will read this carefully and similar questions from other commentators will also be resolved.
Just make a separate archive with RAW and all this will not happen. And everyone is free to see what he sees.
In any case, the feedback from Alexey N. on the review is 100500 times more useful, important and sweeter than it would not be at all.
Yes, it’s hard to disagree, but I propose even better. As I already did in one of the reviews, I will make a print screen at 100% increase from the original. Today I will try to throw it off. And not everyone can download an archive of 2-3 gigabytes and it’s inconvenient for me to store it for years.
You shouldn't be reacting so violently to criticism. Your texts are hard to read, full of typos, grammatical errors, stylistic mistakes and missing punctuation marks. In order for the text to become at least a little readable, you have to mentally edit it, trying to guess what exactly the author was going to express. Actually, you didn't get a review at all. The presented photos are of very dubious quality, they do not even contain all the shooting parameters. If you are criticized, it means that this is exactly the impression people got after reading your texts. And it's not the fault of the readers that you create such emotions with your texts. Nothing personal, but this is the worst “review” on Radozhiv.
A rather watery article with a heavy syllable, as already written above. Too many vague impressions and very few specifics. Not a word about optical imperfections, although judging by the attached photographs, there are enough of them. And in all the photographs, either the trick is unfinished, or it’s really soapy.
Are you sure you read everything? “From what I saw with my own eyes and what I got as a result of working with this lens, I can conclude that this macro lens is not so macro by modern standards. The resolution is certainly good, but below modern professional standards. ” HERE about the shortcomings. There is no razor sharpness at open aperture. The lens is old and the optical design is old without ED elements. What similar lenses do you have? What exactly are you comparing with? The lens has an old picture with noticeable color fringing, but this is its charm and its trick. In all the photos, sharpness is in place, everything was shot in natural conditions. This lens is not for the studio because, again, it does not support modern multi-megapixel sensors. It is much inferior in this to my Sigma EX macro 150 f2,8. mm. But Sigma has a modern boring picture (bokeh) in the portrait.
Thanks for the review !!!
Thanks for the review. It's nice to watch a photo with a telephoto lens.
There is no point in comparing a manual lens with a professional level telephoto AF. As they do here in the comments.
It’s just that you cannot remove on the manual what can be removed on the telezoom. Unfortunately.
Good day, is it worth buying this lens instead of 21m Jupiter?
Thank you
Judging by the examples of the photos from here - definitely not.
I have a Nikkor 200 73 years old. I photograph only on the open aperture, so it turns out more fun. And for some reason it’s better and livelier on the crop, as I look. Usually I shoot a series of 2-3 pictures, about 20 percent goes to waste in sharpness. Now I wrote myself 300 from Ibei, let's see what happens, I think about the same.
The author got a little with light unsuccessfully, or maybe the 8th aperture killed the liveliness of this lens.
A tripod or monopod is very desirable when shooting.