In article <4rrpo8$lp8@kannews.ca.newbridge.com>, dchan@Newbridge.COM says...

>I'm considering buying a compact Nikkor lens in the 200mm range.
>I've a Tamron 80-200mm f2.8 MF LD zoom lens already but it's
>quite heavy, quality is quite good too, may be not as good as the
>Nikkor 80-200mm AF-ED-D zoom. Anyway...
>How is the quality of the 200mm MF f4?

Pretty darn good....

>From David Ruether's Subjective Lens Evaluations,
>there are two versions, how can I tell which is the better version?

Ah, here's an excerpt from my SLE(MN), covering Nikkor 180 and 200mm
lenses (there are a lot of lenses in this group!):

- 180mm f2.8 non-ED ----- 4.8 (1)
- 180mm f2.8 ED --------- 5 (1)
- 180mm f2.8 EDIF AF D -- 5.5 (1) (this lens is SUPERB at all
apertures, center-to-corner, all distances [even on short tube])
- 180mm f2.5 preset ----- (untried) (adapted from rf to SLR)
- 200mm f5.6 Medical ---- (untried) (needs power pack for ring flash)
- 200mm f4 older -------- 4 (several samples)
- 200mm f4 compact ------ 4.5 (several samples, can be great
as a macro lens [the best for about 3X that I have used - see
90mm Sigma comments])
- 200mm f4 MF Micro------ 4 (2) (slight sample variation, 1:2)
- 200mm f4 EDIF AF D Micro(untried) (1:1)
- 200mm f3.5 EDIF AF ---- (untried) (early AF lens for F3AF)
- 200mm f2 EDIF --------- (untried) (all of the fast EDIF Nikkors
have good reputations)

The larger, older version is non-AI - the compact newer version is
AI/AIS. Both use 52mm filters. If you are looking to reduce
size/weight, the compact version is quite small for a good 200mm.


>What aperature can be used with the 200mm MF lens?

In B & W, all apertures are fine (except, maybe, f32), but with slides,
you may want to stop down slightly for best-looking results with the
200mm f4's (good samples of older and newer versions are reasonably
close in performance, with the newer being slightly better [I currently
have both {ah, the older |Nikon AI'D| is for sale....}, and recently
compared them again]).

>What is a reasonable used price for an excellent to mint condition one?

Somewhat less than B&H's new price (for mint).

>Is the 180mm AF-ED-non-D optically the same as the D version?

Yes.

>In terms of resolution and contrast, is the 180mm much superior than
>the 200mm?

It is noticeably better, especially with slides, at the widest 2-3
apertures - the 200mm is good (I keep one), but the 180mm f2.8 AF
Nikkor is one of the best lenses that I have seen of any type (one of
the very few that I gave a "5.5"), and it is free of focus-dependent
sharpness variations. It is excellent to the corners at f2.8 in both
color and B & W, at all distances. My only complaint with it is that
a rear mask prevents mounting converters that should work very well
with it (it does work well with the TC14A, and OK with the TC200/201).

>I've tried the 180mm AF with the FM2, the balance isn't very good, the
>focusing ring is a bit too much at the front part of the lens.
>How is the 200mm in this respect?

Lighter, shorter, smaller in diameter - with a wide focus ring near
the center (but I find physically longer, heavier lenses easier to hand
hold at slower speeds - the 200mm is barely holdable at 1/250th, while
the 180mm is OK at 1/125th). BTW, the AF is easy to hold if you hold
the camera/lens by the lens, extending a finger or two forward to
focus with the easily moved internal-focus ring.

>Thanks for your help and info.
>David Chan

You're welcome! (You aren't Wing Kwai, by chance?)
Hope This Helps