I have the AIS version, and used it for many years on film cameras (have not used it much recently due to lack of time and opportunity).
The tripod mount is the most solid of any lens I own, a clam-shell design of solid metal. The AI version has a similar but narrower tripod collar, I expect it is still among the best (especially compared to many modern lenses). Rotation could be smoother - it's basically (painted) metal on metal, not lubricated so it can be a little rough or squeaky, but it's never been a problem in use.
With the tripod mount removed the lens is surprisingly light-weight, not much different from the non-macro version. However this lens is designed for tripod work, I don't think I ever shot it hand-held. For hand-held shooting the focus ring is uncomfortably far to the front, the non-macro 200/4 is much better in this regard since the focus ring falls comfortably in the hand nearer the centre of balance.
The focus action is light and smooth. The focus throw is reasonably long, but like many macro lenses the focus throw near infinity is very compressed compared to the non-macro version.
It has a built-in hood which is adequate. Like many slide-out hoods it is a little wobbly, and it could be longer, but it does the job.
It has 9 aperture blades with straight edges, when stopped down the background blurs will be 9-sided polygons, not rounded, but it does produce nice 18-point diffraction stars.
Optically, there is no difference between the AI and AIS versions. There may be improvements to the coatings but nothing dramatic. I have seen several AIS lenses where the coating behind the first element appears to have an irregular watermark around the rim. I had one lens cleaned but it made no difference. The coating seems to be easily affected by something - humidity? I'm not sure of the cause. It does not appear to affect performance, but something to be aware of.
The lens gets to 1:2 magnification by itself, with a focus distance of 0.71m. That is over twice the close focus distance of the AF 105 micros.
The long working distance is extremely useful for outdoor photography, especially for subjects at ground level since you don't need to get so low. It also makes positioning of the tripod much easier, there is less chance that setting up the legs will disturb the subject. To increase magnification further, I have used the 3T closeup lens or PK-13 extension tube, with good results.
When shooting film (Velvia and Provia) I was always pleased with the results. Sharpness is good an background rendition is pleasing. It is prone to flare when shooting into strong light. Lack of ED glass means it is not well colour corrected but it should be possible to clean this up in post processing.
The picture in this thread was taken with the AIS 200/4 micro:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3080.0.htmlAlternatives that may be worth considering:
- AF 200/4 micro - sharper and better colour corrected, but much bigger and expensive.
- AIS 105/4 micro - no focal length shortening so has much longer working distance compared to other 105mm macro lenses. Very good optically, and mates well with the PN-11 tube for 1:1 magnification.
- Sigma 150/2.8 macro - the non IS version has a good reputation and is relatively compact.
