The Nikkor-Q 200mm f/4!

[richardHaw]

mine wobbles a bit even with the set screw the objective wobbles with the focusing ring so something inside is the culprit.
sorry i was thinking about the 300mm f/4.5

[the solitaire]

Late for the party but I hope my reply is still acceptable here

I also own a copy of the pre-Ai Nikon 200mm f4 Nikkor-Q. The multicoated Nikkor-Q.C version to be precise.
I really like the appearance of the lens. Other then the 20mm f3,5 Nikkor-UD no other lens comes close in being a sculpture as well as a usable camera lens

ready 4 more by b j, on Flickr

I do like this lens a lot more then the later Ai and Ai-S versions. Rendering and sharpness are overall on a much higher level, or I had really bad copies of both the Ai and Ai-S lenses

Here are soem samples from my copy of the 200mm f4 Nikkor-S.C on a D3 at f4

DSC_9458 by b j, on Flickr

DSC_9465 by b j, on Flickr

I used the camera as part of a two lens setup for macro photography using a 50mm f1,4 at the front which also worked very well. Don't have any samples because I noticed on the attempt that I should really really clean my image sensor before stacking multiple macro exposures like that.

I also tried it with the Nikon TC-16a and got some satisfactory results there. The 200 f4 Nikkor-Q.C by itself is very sharp across the frame even wide open and gives beautiful rendering and good color and contrast. With the TC16 the edges suffered, mostly due to the optics in the TC.

Another really excellent performer, and just as underrated and affordable is the 135mm f3,5 Nikkor-Q.C.

Here are a few examples of that lens wide open on my D3

close

DSC_0576 by b j, on Flickr

far

DSC_0575-Edit by b j, on Flickr

bokeh

DSC_5328-Edit-Edit by b j, on Flickr

portrait

DSC_6402-3 by b j, on Flickr

[richardHaw]

that is a lovely portrait of your dog
very well done!

i am not sure about the Ai and Ai-S. i do feel that the Ai-S is sharper but lacking character in the bokeh department. the color rendition is different as well. i hve an Ai but never got to test it since it was bought as a junker for parts

[Øivind Tøien]

Any lens would look good with that dog. 

I have both an AIed late pre-AI version and an AIS version and have not noticed a difference except the latter possibly a hair sharper. However it would need more side by side testing for the other characters. The diaphragm on the latter is more joined, although I have encountered several copies with some asymmetry in the diaphragm.  In the former the blades do not completely cover each other at the wider apertures.

[John Geerts]

I do like this lens a lot more then the later Ai and Ai-S versions. Rendering and sharpness are overall on a much higher level, or I had really bad copies of both the Ai and Ai-S lenses

Yes, I think the same applies also for the 80-200/4.5 C and the 85/1.8 (C and K) were I prefer Rendering and Sharpness as well. 

[Roland Vink]

I have both an AIed late pre-AI version and an AIS version and have not noticed a difference ...

These two have the same optics, maybe some differences in coatings, so this finding is not surprising.

[the solitaire]

John, I am not so certain about my opinion on the 80-200 zooms. I owned the 80-200 f4 Ai-S for well over 15 years after which I found out the lens tube was cracked from the moment I bought it which finally explained the stiff aperture ring, and possibly the reason why I got it for free from a camera shop when buying another lens.

I did make an offer on an 80-200 f4 Ai-S on ebay today so I might end up owning that lens again, but this topic is about the 200mm f4 Nikkor-Q, and hopefully my ramblings about th Q.C version are tolerated here as well.

I went to the zoo this tuesday and brought my 200mm f4 Nikkor-Q.C with me. As it happened, the lens never left my camera up to the moment where I mounted a 1,4x TC for some additional reach.

Here are some of the pictures I made. So far all I can say is that I my opinion still is that this 200mm f4 is sharper then pictures I have seen taken with the Ai and Ai-S versions. Sample variation might play a part, and I am quite certain that my copy of th elens is in excellent shape optically.

All of the photos below were made wide open, which is about the only setting I use on this lens.

DSC_8224 by b j, on Flickr

DSC_8021 by b j, on Flickr

DSC_8106 by b j, on Flickr

DSC_8134 by b j, on Flickr

DSC_8207 by b j, on Flickr

DSC_8265 by b j, on Flickr

And now the ones with TC. These suffer from the extra glass. I might have to invest in a Nikon TC14a or buy a 300mm lens for the additional reach needed

DSC_8277 by b j, on Flickr

DSC_8337 by b j, on Flickr

[richardHaw]

those are lovely pictures, Buddy

i especially loved the giraffe photo

[John Geerts]

Yes, agree. Lovely pictures.

John, I am not so certain about my opinion on the 80-200 zooms. I owned the 80-200 f4 Ai-S for well over 15 years after which I found out the lens tube was cracked from the moment I bought it which finally explained the stiff aperture ring, and possibly the reason why I got it for free from a camera shop when buying another lens.

Actually I am talking about the 80-200/4.5 and specifically the multicoated version serialno 192...   and higher.  I had two samples of the 80-200/4 and didn't like them.

[Matthew Currie]

Reawakening an old thread for the moment, I was out at the pond chasing bugs and things, and though the old 200 is not a very good lens for this owing to its lack of close focus, and a bit hard to hold steady on a DX camera, I stuck an extension tube on it and used a tripod, and found, not surprisingly, that the results are pretty nice.  The following shot is cropped, and a wee bit of sharpening added to compensate for the downsizing of the JPG, and of course no meter, but I thought it came out rather nicely, especially for a four dollar lens.

[richardHaw]

Reawakening an old thread for the moment, I was out at the pond chasing bugs and things, and though the old 200 is not a very good lens for this owing to its lack of close focus, and a bit hard to hold steady on a DX camera, I stuck an extension tube on it and used a tripod, and found, not surprisingly, that the results are pretty nice.  The following shot is cropped, and a wee bit of sharpening added to compensate for the downsizing of the JPG, and of course no meter, but I thought it came out rather nicely, especially for a four dollar lens.

Nice! how much did you crop

[Matthew Currie]

Nice! how much did you crop

Pretty arbitrary, but I took it to about 2/3 of the original dimensions.  Ordinarily I'd try a bit more to get it right in the camera,  but the 36 mm. extension tube limits range a lot, and between the long close focus of that lens and the muddy embankment, that was the closest I could get.

[richardHaw]

OK, now that you got me interested with this thing again, I may bring this out for a little shoot one of these days

[the solitaire]

You should Richard.

I did the other day and wasn't disapointed

[richardHaw]

OK, this lens is supposed to be FG Ang's lens but I overhauled it by accident

this is crazy sharp! I was not expecting the Nikkor-Q 20cm f/4 to be this good wide-open!
focusing this thing on the street is not easy if you are trying to look inconspicuous but it wasn't difficult with the Df.