Different versions of the Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5

[richardHaw]

nice vivid yellow

[FGAng]

I had per chance found 2 copies of this lens, both the last Ai version with square lens protector, both from junk boxes (one from Fujiya Tokyo, the other at Takachiho Fukuoka).  Both during business travel.

My casual non-scientific non-AB comparison showed that this lens is sharper than the f/4 AiS version.


Nikon Df, Ai 80-200mm f/4.5, 1/200 f/4.5, ISO 1100, LR saturation added, resized.

It was a rainy day, you can see the rain streak in the background.

[richardHaw]

hello, mr. Ang!

yes, that was also my observation
it might be because f/4.5 is smaller than f/4 i personally find it difficult to judge this lens against the newer one because to my eyes, the output looks VERY similar. and i have the older one and not the one with the square baffles!!!

[FGAng]

Ya it is kind of hard to compare the 80-200mm f/4.5 Ai vs 80-200mm f/4 AiS.  But the f/4.5 is slightly easier to handle, being lighter, and kind of gives it an edge.

This was taken some time back with D800 while on business trip to Sydney, with an earlier copy but better condition f/4.5.


Nikon D800 Ai 80-200mm f/4.5, 6s f/8, ISO 100.


100% crop of above image - scary sharp!  You can see the decoration in the rooms!

But this lens loses out in the race to fill my bag when I travel, to the E 75-150mm f/3.5, due to weight and larger maximum aperture.  Neither the f/4.5 or the f/4 versions get to go out and play very often.

[Roland Vink]

Ya it is kind of hard to compare the 80-200mm f/4.5 Ai vs 80-200mm f/4 AiS.  But the f/4.5 is slightly easier to handle, being lighter, and kind of gives it an edge.
[...]
But this lens loses out in the race to fill my bag when I travel, to the E 75-150mm f/3.5, due to weight and larger maximum aperture.  Neither the f/4.5 or the f/4 versions get to go out and play very often.

My experience is similar, the 75-150 wins due to the smaller size, faster speed and closer focusing.

When the original 80-200/4.5 was upgraded, Nikon took a very conservative approach - we got an improved optical design but otherwise the specifications are nearly the same - the overall size didn't change at all, the weight is slightly lower, focus throw is more or less the same, and the close focus limit of 1.8m is unchanged. That's a pity because the optical arrangement is very similar to the 75-150 and 80-200/4 which both focus much closer. If the newer 80-200/4.5 focused closer I would be tempted to take it out more often. I do note that Bjørn states it works well with the 3T or 4T closeup lens, so maybe I should give it a try.

The 80-200/4 seems to have a so-so reputation, even though it was the pro tele zoom of the period (until the AIS 80-200/2.8 ED came along...) It feels bigger, barrel has a thicker neck and larger 62mm filter size, but amazingly the overall dimensions and weight are hardly changed from the earlier models - an impressive feat given the 2/3 stop increase in speed. The filter size is also no longer standard with the majority of Nikon AIS primes. The close focus ability is very handy - even better than the 75-150 relative to the focal length. Sharpness is also good but correction for CA is not great and quickly becomes apparent on digital sensors. Not that the 80-200/4.5 or 75-150 are prefect either.

[longknives]

the pre-ai version on Df i was great surprised about the iq

Without any doubt whatsoever...that is pure Cadillac!

Picked up one of the square baffled one's cheap, got the front element cleaned up and patched up the creep with tape. Later on picked up a 300mm Ai that was actually a K that had been Ai'd, stole the baffle off the 80-200 and modified it to fit the 300 in order to get matrix metering. Both lenses work however I need to open up the 80-200 to deep clean the debris, the pic's are good but looking thru the glass is a bit dishearting.

[Ian R]

I'm pleased to see that this lens is still being used as intended in 2016. I think the design team would be pleased with that.

I have been using mine a fair bit this year, however I do note occasional colour fringing in some shots which Adobe can clean right up - so no problem.

[richardHaw]

just got another one 

[the solitaire]

Can I discuss the 80-200 f4 Ai-S here as well?

From what I can see the f4,5 lens looks incredibly sharp so it would certainly be interesting to test one of them.
I bought an 80-200 f4 Ai-S last week, mostly because I always like the lens on film.

On my D3 I am not quite convinced it is entirely sharp. I'm now playing around with it to see if that's because of veiling flare or if it really is a characteristic of the lens and if the 80-200 f4,5 Ai really is the sharpest of the bunch.

Here is a picture taken with the 80-200 f4 Ai-S. Not the best to judge critical sharpness, but one of the features I always liked in the lens is itr's close focus ability at 1,2m MfD

[longknives]

From what I've read the f/4 Ai-s version is just as sharp as the f/4.5 Ai, maybe even a tad sharper I've seen some photo's from the Ai-s that were very sharp.

A second look seems that focus might be just starting to hit on the left and right rims of the petals, but my eyes are 65 years old...maybe a re-shoot is in order for a double check?

[richardHaw]

 

[richardHaw]

OK, i can now claim to have torn down the 2 versions.

they are very different mechanically

1st pic is the original one.

2nd pic is the last version.

the 2nd version is greatly simplified and the parts are made a lot sturdier. The 2nd version is probably around 30% simpler. unessential things like the sleeve for the front barrel was omitted,etc.

[John Geerts]

You don't see them often, a factory Ai-'d version of the 'Nikkor-C auto' in a very pleasant state.

[Zang]

I am sure a few people here know...

Do these lenses have lose zoom issue since new or the is issue developed over time?

[wolan]

Is there a version of this lens without rotating front element? I really like it but I'd like to use filters on it.
Thanks