Hi--

>in your SLE(MN) I found you stating that the 180/2.8 was very good
>even on short tubes. What do you mean by that? How short is a "short
>tube"? Recently, somebody on the Nikon mailing list mentioned that you
>can increase the magnification of the 180/2.8 from about 1:6 to about
>1:3 using a PK13. Can the same be achieved using a 2x converter?
>Does this lens perform well on 2x converters, at all?

A PK-13 is OK, with the lens stopped down a bit - it is fine with the
shorter tube. Most Nikkor medium teles (5 elements) are not good at
normal minimum focus, and get worse on tubes - which is why I mentioned
the AF's good close-focus characteristics. VERY few lenses are good on
2X converters, unless well stopped down. The 180AF is not in the top
group (300 2.8, 400 3.5 on TC300), but is good on a 2X at smaller
apertures, decent at wider.

>Sorry for bothering you with this, but I'm currently deciding between
>the AF 80-200/2.8 and the AF 180/2.8 (having already a AF 85/1.8). The
>preferences of the Nikon mailing list members seem to be distributed
>somewhat like 50/50, so I just wanted to collect all "facts" before I
>let my heart decide ;-)
>Thanks for your time
>Steffen. Steffen Kluge

Ah, a tough decision. I had both, sold the 180. A nature photographer
had both, sold the zoom. For people shooting, I favor the zoom. For
nature, the 180AF (the zoom is big and heavy to travel with, the zoom feature is less useful in slower nature work, and the close-up performance
of the zoom near the long end is not great [understatement!;-]). Since
you have the 85, I would get the 180AF (bargain price at B&H on the non-D,
BTW....). If you are into macro and can afford it, I would look at the
200 Micro AF (I have never tried it, but I was not enthusiastic about
the MF version...). So, what is this "mailing list" like - I have not
seen it?