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

[richardHaw]

accidentally placed an element facing the wrong direction and now my 80-200 is an ART lens

somebody told me that people pay a lot just to get something like this (lomo petzval)

[Bjørn Rørslett]

You could make a small cottage business out of this.

People send in their 80-200 for "ART" modification. $ 200 + shipping.

[John Geerts]

Yes   The 'Famous' 80-200/4.5 Petzval...

[richardHaw]

lol
if i can remember which one i got wrong, maybe i can reproduce it haha

it actually looks interesting

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I once got a nice looking 180-600 mm f/8 ED Nikkor as "junk" because it could not focus at all. The zoom ring was stuck and so was the focusing collar. (this is a slide zoom design). With the lens mounted to the camera, no image sharpness at all was found at any distance. Obviously the lens had been tampered with as witnessed by the damaged screw hole in the tripod foot and tell-tale marks from screwdrivers here and there However, at $100 incl. shipping for this elusive and huge lens, who should complain. It could be stood on a shelf as a trophy if nothing else.

Fixing the tripod mount was easy  by drilling and tapping a hole for 3/8" instead of the tiny 1/4" stock screw mount. Had to go to this size because the damage was comprehensive, but the foot for once is a massive slab of metal so plenty estate to work with.

When the lens was opened, the reason for it being jammed was obvious: the 'repair tech' had matched the helicoid in error and it jammed against the end stop. Also an easy fix. The guides for the zoom control were tightened too much.

However, although these obstacles were resolved, the lens still was unable to provide a focused image. Patiently working by flipping element after element, the culprit was found to be a wrongly orientated element #8 (or was it #9) deep inside the lens assembly. Each 'flip-over' necessitated a lens tear-down then re-assembly, so getting there took 'some' time.

Then, all that remained was adding a CPU and I got a super zoom for next to nothing. Although the 180-600 is big and heavy, it is dwarfed by its bigger brother, the mighty 360-1200 Nikkor. Both share the same high degree of colour correction so they lack the IR focusing mark.

[richardHaw]

Thanks for sharing that experience. i have the objective's schematic as a guide as well as my own notes. i was really tired with our project now (thankfully it's done!) and i definitely got it wrong because of that. but this was quite interesting, the center was acceptably sharp...might be great for dream sequence shooting

we use Nikkors sometimes to shoot our footage so this might be a neat trick

[richardHaw]

OK, it's the 6th element
i got that one in reverse. i documented it wrong so my notes for that element was wrong
now it's on the correct direction and the results are stunning despite having fungus damage on the surface of the 2nd doublet

[John Geerts]

Underestimated optical gems.

The three latest versions.  Notice the difference in coating colour of the last one to the left.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Not 'underestimated' gems. The 80-200 was all the rage when it arrived on the scene in the '70s. More like forgotten amidst the raft of zoom optics flooding the market place later.

The 80-200/4.5 with a 3T or even better, 4T, makes for a very nice and versatile close-up weapon. Used that a lot for capturing bugs and butterflies before the 200/4 Micro came into my lens line. Still use the combination on occasion.

[John Geerts]

Okay, but that means that one must have experienced the '70's  to know that.     Apart from Nikongear I hear seldom about this 'forgotten' zoom hence the word 'underestimated'.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Still remember the first one I got in early '70s, around '74 I think. Amazing quality of the Kodachromes. My brother brought it with him to Rome a little later and managed to drop it from the walls of a Roman ruin. Thus I got the next version ... Even better optically.

A few years ago, I purchased a near pristine 80-200/4.5 (first version) for $40 locally. It was even AI-modified by the factory kit.

Thus I now have both versions. Plus the 80-200/4.

[Hugh_3170]

Yes, the late Ai version was a 12 lens element / 9 element group arrangement versus 15 element / 10 group setup for the early Ai and its predecessors.  Also it weighed in lighter at 750g versus 830g.  Its diameter is 1.5mm smaller, but its length is the same.  My copy has a serial number of 798716.  Zoom is a bit sloppy and noisy now.

awesome shots, gentlemen

in case you guys are wondering, the differences between the square baffle and the round baffle is more than cosmetic (and optical). there were some important mechanical changes internally. i saw them when i overhauled my 80-200 f/4.5, this thing is super dirty. the caked grease needed to be removed mechanically with a dremel and a brush

[richardHaw]

OK...if my junk of a lens is giving me great images despite being the first version and being picked up from the junk box it's remarkable how good the 2nd version should be

the 80-200 f/4 ai-s costs almost as much as the cheapest toyota for sale when i was younger, i can imagine that it is the same for this in the late 60s

by the way, not only did the optics changed but the mechanical stuff as well. the newer ones have better, more robust engineering and design. lots of differences inside. i can say that it is practically a different lens.

[richardHaw]

crazy. after fixing the reversed element, this lens is giving me really great results
it will not hold a candle against the 70-200s but i still say great because these were old with ancient coatings add the fact that there were a few fungus damage inside the elements and that alone makes this lens a winner.

The lens held up with the D7200's sensor. some of my older lenses will show flaws when mounted on the D7200 but looks fine on the D750, this one performed well on both high resolution bodies also worth mentioning is how well the D7200's dynamic range is compared to the D750 but i should start another topic for that

[John Geerts]

I still say great because these were old with ancient coatings

Ancient?  Can't really agree to this qualification, and if so give me the ancient coatings then   

On the D800E with 3-4T
A pretty nice combination which allows handheld work