The Nikkor-Q 200mm f/4!

[richardHaw]

http://richardhaw.com/2016/03/07/repair-auto-nikkor-q-200mm-f4/

crazy, I got this lens for $3.50 

i was not expecting this lens to perform well since it is old and with all that fungus in the glass i was assuming that the glass was etched beyond repair. i was proven wrong! 
this lens performed great on the D750's sensor. it is sharp, saturated and contrasty!
this was such a surprise because i got this lens for the purpose of salvaging this lens parts but I ended up restoring it and using it for myself...
the first version was not good according to some people but this (2nd) version sure is amazing!

[richardHaw]

some people also claim that this lens performs exceptionally well with the T micro filter from Nikon 

a friend also told me that this is also a great lens when used as a relay lens for macro photography...

[Akira]

Good job, Rick!

My Nikkor-Q C amazes me either on FX, DX or even m4/3.  It does show some LoCA in the OOF areas which can be mitigated in CC2015 fairly easily.

I have Kenko No.2, 3 and 5 achromatic closeup lenses.  I will try them.

[richardHaw]

Good job, Rick!

My Nikkor-Q C amazes me either on FX, DX or even m4/3.  It does show some LoCA in the OOF areas which can be mitigated in CC2015 fairly easily.

I have Kenko No.2, 3 and 5 achromatic closeup lenses.  I will try them.

Thanks! i wonder how this thing performs with TC 

[charlie]

And I thought I got mine for a steal for $40 in like new condition.

[richardHaw]

And I thought I got mine for a steal for $40 in like new condition.

it usually costs around that. mine was heavily infested with fungi, even the metal parts had them  so they sold it for $3.50

[John Geerts]

Good job, Rick!

My Nikkor-Q C amazes me either on FX, DX or even m4/3.  It does show some LoCA in the OOF areas which can be mitigated in CC2015 fairly easily.

I have Kenko No.2, 3 and 5 achromatic closeup lenses.  I will try them.

That C-version is the first multi-coated one, not? 
These first multi-coated versions perform very good.  I noticed that on the 135/2.8 Q C as well.  They also give probably a half stop more light than the 2.8.  Close up lens works perfect there too.

The same applies for the 85K /1.8  the first multicoated version. It's very close to the later introduced 85/1.4 (apart from the design, obviously).

[Akira]

That C-version is the first multi-coated one, not? 
These first multi-coated versions perform very good.  I noticed that on the 135/2.8 Q C as well.  They also give probably a half stop more light than the 2.8.  Close up lens works perfect there too.

The same applies for the 85K /1.8  the first multicoated version. It's very close to the later introduced 85/1.4 (apart from the design, obviously).

John, I believe the Q C 200mm/f4.0 was one of the first Nikkors to be multi-coated (in 1973?).

I also wanted 85/1.8, but its 6-blade straight aperture made me back off...

[richardHaw]

this lens should look great with the Df. 

anybody knows how ugly the original version is compared to this or the C?

[Akira]

Rick, I don't necessarily think that the original version was all that ugly.  But the narrow grip of its focus ring appears to be awkward to operate.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

More like it produced a strange impression by the combination of metal and paint plus the stair-case like stages in its outline. I get the same feeling when I look at the first zoom Nikkors of the '60s too. The mechanical side of the affair probably came last in the development of the lens.

[John Geerts]

John, I believe the Q C 200mm/f4.0 was one of the first Nikkors to be multi-coated (in 1973?).

I also wanted 85/1.8, but its 6-blade straight aperture made me back off...

1973 for 85, 105, 135 and 200, but 1972 for the 50mm's  according to Roland Vink's database. It depends which multi-coating is meant, I am not sure?

What are your objections against a 6-blade straight aperture?  The bokeh of the 85/1.8 K  can be as smooth as any 1.4 lens

[Roland Vink]

The transition from older single-coated to multi-coated lenses in the early 1970s is quite clear. Back then there weren't different types of multi-coating.

Originally it was known as multi-layer coating, later Intergrated Coating (IC) and then Nikon Integrated Coating (NIC). All are essentially the same thing, although there a likely to be improvements along the way. The first "new" coating was Super Integrated Coating (SIC) which started appearing around 2000? This is supposed to be more effective over a wider range of wavelengths, but is not a radical change. The last real improvement is Nano-Crystal-Coat which works in a different way and is much more effective, but is also expensive and delicate so is only used on selected internal surfaces, the rest are still SIC.

[Akira]

The last real improvement is Nano-Crystal-Coat which works in a different way and is much more effective, but is also expensive and delicate so is only used on selected internal surfaces, the rest are still SIC.

If I'm not mistaken, there have been no Nikkor lenses that uses Nano Crystal Coat on more than one lens surfaces.  So its use is very limited.

[null]

The Nikon/Nikkormat Handbook, Joseph Cooper, states that the selected groups of the Nikkor-S 55/1.2 were the first to be multicoated, starting in 1969. The selection of surfaces being multi-coated were "guided" by the computer. I believe the 35/1.4 and 28/2 were multi-coated early on. I had one of those 55/1.2 lenses, but sold it and kept the Nikkor-SC.