The Nikkor-Q 200mm f/4!

[richardHaw]

it's also very good wide-open at both ends of the focus scale
pity it's 3m minimum distance wasn't very useful

[Hugh_3170]

Richard, have you tried this lens with an extension tube, and if so does the image quality still hold up?

Not all lenses do well with extension tubes, but figured this older design just might.

it's also very good wide-open at both ends of the focus scale
pity it's 3m minimum distance wasn't very useful

[richardHaw]

Richard, have you tried this lens with an extension tube, and if so does the image quality still hold up?

Not all lenses do well withextension tubes, but figured this older design just might.

not yet. i can try tomorrow at the park

[Roland Vink]

How come you can get good pictures with a 50 year old lens, while others need the latest AF-S APO Aspherical Nano VR wunder-optik ??

As for extension tubes, the Nikkor-Q 200mm went from the old chrome barrel version focusing to 3m, to the black barrel focusing to 2m, with virtually the same optics, so the lens surely performs well with a little more extension (I wonder why it didn't go to 2m in the first place?)

[Akira]

Nikkor-Q 200/4.0 is a formidable, considering its 40+year-old design.

I had tried it with PN-11, and its round rendition and creamy bokeh was very pleasing, so far as I remember.

[Matthew Currie]

Well, there's one way to find out for sure.  I have tried this with various tubes, and the main problem is holding it steady, and getting sharp focus with the measly D3200 viewfinder.  But I'm kind of housebound today with a bad case of airport flu, so stepped out back to the rose of sharon and stuck the thing on 36 mm. Vivitar tube and a mini tripod, and did a couple of quick and dirties,  and though the critical focus is not - well - critical, and the exposure is, as always,a meterless guess,  I find the results pretty decent.

e.t.a. the camera is a D3200, set at ISO 200, shutter speed 1/250, aperture 5.6 on the first, 8 on the second.  First was a little too bright, needing some highlight recovery.

[the solitaire]

I do not have pictures to show, but also found that the 200mm f4 Nikkor-Q.C holds up well with tubes.

The Nikkor-Q.C also focuses as close as 2 meters. The PK-11 and 12 hardly bring a benefit, but the PK-13 works quite well for narrower ranges. WIth the PN-11 the lens is still very usable. I found however that when stacking extension tubes the viewfinder does become very dark.

With a PN-11 and 2x PK-13 the image quality suffered.

[Matthew Currie]

Just for grins I put on all three of the Vivitar tubes, making a total of 68 mm. of extension, and went out again.  It's kind of windy, and as the Solitaire mentions, the viewfinder gets pretty dark,  all of which makes focus a little difficult, but once again, although ergonomic issues make this an unlikely rig for macros, I like the way it sees things.

[richardHaw]

How come you can get good pictures with a 50 year old lens, while others need the latest AF-S APO Aspherical Nano VR wunder-optik ??

As for extension tubes, the Nikkor-Q 200mm went from the old chrome barrel version focusing to 3m, to the black barrel focusing to 2m, with virtually the same optics, so the lens surely performs well with a little more extension (I wonder why it didn't go to 2m in the first place?)

this lens sure is crazy. If only i can show you the crop for the building you can see the tiles clearly defined all the way to the edge. tile-by-tile the details were there

according to the 1001 nights site, the black barrel model had some optical refinements made, maybe an element was reshaped or spaced differently? I tried swapping the elements of this lens to another one (the new version) just to see what will happen since I have one opened anyway and I got a hazy image all throughout the range meaning that the optics were probably reshaped or re-spaced it's as if i wasnt wearing any glasses and my vision is blurred. nothing was sharp even the centre of the image.

[richardHaw]

Nikkor-Q 200/4.0 is a formidable, considering its 40+year-old design.

I had tried it with PN-11, and its round rendition and creamy bokeh was very pleasing, so far as I remember.

surprisingly, performance dropped when I tried using it this morning with an M2 ring
it brought the minimum focus distance to about 1.5m and maximum focus to around 3m. I cannot even focus on some ducks in the pond that were around 4m away from me it's is decently sharp but not micro-nikkor sharp.

[richardHaw]

e.t.a. the camera is a D3200, set at ISO 200, shutter speed 1/250, aperture 5.6 on the first, 8 on the second.  First was a little too bright, needing some highlight recovery.

nice bee shots! I love bees
how long is the vivitar tube?

here are crops of the images that I posted before. looks decent to me but again, nowhere near the micro-nikkors. there was fringing happening and they went away with LR's awesome tool. the images were shot wide-open. at f/5.6 the fringing was largely gone but the sharpness did not improve much. This is the same thing that I noticed when using the lens without any tubes and shooting medium ranged subjects. really sharp at f/4 and does not really benefit much from stopping down. I would even go as far as say that the image quality can rival that from the 70-200VR2

[richardHaw]

I found however that when stacking extension tubes the viewfinder does become very dark.

never got that this morning since it was sunny

i did notice some IQ loss when used with an M ring

[richardHaw]

ergonomic issues make this an unlikely rig for macros, I like the way it sees things.

i read somewhere that this makes for a very good relay lens. it makes perfect sense since it only has 4 elements
the 200mm f/4K and above were very good for this

[Matthew Currie]

Richard, the first two shots were with a single 36 mm. tube, the last one with all three in the set adding up to 68.  My ability to focus was pretty poor, I think, even with the aid of a tripod (hand held would have been impossible today),  and it doesn't help that I'm a bit out of focus today anyway, but I really like the tone.  Maybe I'm just succumbing to the placebo effect, but it seems as if some of those old lenses just have a lush, deep look that newer ones don't.

[richardHaw]

Richard, the first two shots were with a single 36 mm. tube, the last one with all three in the set adding up to 68.  My ability to focus was pretty poor, I think, even with the aid of a tripod (hand held would have been impossible today),  and it doesn't help that I'm a bit out of focus today anyway, but I really like the tone.  Maybe I'm just succumbing to the placebo effect, but it seems as if some of those old lenses just have a lush, deep look that newer ones don't.

focusing was difficult with mine as well. f/4 is more difficult to manual focus than f/2.8 because the distinction between what's in focus and what is not is very difficult to determine.