Micro Nikkor 200mm AIs vs AF

[David H. Hartman]

I just did a quick and dirty investigation of color fringing with the 200mm f/4.0 IF Micro-Nikkor on my D850. A careful test is not indicated. Red-Green color fringing outside of prime focus with the raw lens at 1:2 is unpleasant and color fringing is worse with a reversed Nikon 4T close up lens. The target was a scared brash garden hose nozzle. The subject was back lite and the light was somewhat softened sunlight coming through a translucent deck cover. The color fringing was observed in the center of the frame. The fringing was red before and green after prime focus. ***I'd appreciate someone with more technical knowledge commenting.***

With Nikon's Capture NX-D, Axial Color Aberration correction feature set to 100 the color fringing is mitigated some but not nearly enough. This is a deal breaker for me. I will not be using the 200/4.0 IF Micro-Nikkor for close-up photography with my D850.

Performance at a distance of 2.5 meters seems good. I'll have to do more testing. Ken Rockwell's vignette test show vignetting wide open at infinity and something like 1.5 meters of about what I remember or less. It's not hard in the corners like a 50/1.2 AIS Nikkor at f/1.2. I would think it is correctable and stopping down to f/5.6 reduces it to a level that shouldn't bother me. The transition is soft enough that it might serve to center the eye on the center of the frame. I often use Photoshop's Lens Distortion Correction, Vignette Feature to give a subtle false lens vignette to place emphasis on the primary subject.

This is the first time the 200/4.0 IF Micro has been out of storage in a long time. The last time was when my D800 was new and I only remember shooting subjects at a distance of maybe 2 meters and greater. If the price is right the 200/4.0 IF Micro may make a pleasing 200mm f/4.0 general use telephoto. The IF focus is as slick as I remember it.

Again I won't be using this lens for close-up to macro with my D850. I hope someone will give the 200/4.0 IF Micro a spin on a modern Nikon DSLR and confirm that I'm not talking trash. 

Dave

[Birna Rørslett]

Your analysis tallies with mine, Dave

[David H. Hartman]

Thank you.

[Birna Rørslett]

That being said, I have had some acceptable captures using the 200/4 Micro in a photomacrographic relay system (with infinity-corrected objektives in front). The AFD ED Micro does better, though, but also is more awkward and cumbersome on occasion due to its size and heft.

[David H. Hartman]

It's worse: even in filtered sunlight at 2.0~2.5 meters a chrome rod holding a cockatoo's play tray want's a little help from the Axial Color Aberration tool in CNX-D. Stopping down from f/4.0 to f/8 helps but still the Axial Color Aberration tool is needed. I already have to use the Axial Color Aberration tool with all photos from my AF-S 105/2.8 ED VR Micro. The ACA tool isn't a panacea: it dulls colors in an image.

Just considering the lenses I own my 180/2.8 ED AIS eats the 200/4.0 IF Micro's lunch as a mid range telephoto and the AF-D 70-180/4.5-5.6 ED Micro does that at close-up to 1/2 life size. The sad truth is my Nikon D850 doesn't like my 200/4.0 IF Micro.

Dave

[Roland Vink]

It's a pity it wasn't made as a 180/4 ED-IF micro instead. Shortening the focal length slightly would mean the entrance pupil shrinks to 45mm, the front element could be oversized to reduce vignetting and still fit comfortably within the 52mm filter. And ED glass would have reduced CA, but in those days ED glass was much more expensive and CA is less of a problem on film.

The old 200/4 micro is still capable of good images, but best to avoid subjects CA will be obvious.

[David H. Hartman]

The old 200/4 micro is still capable of good images, but best to avoid subjects CA will be obvious.

Is the Nikon D850 and also the Z7 II too brutally high resolution for the 200/4.0 IF Micro? I'm wondering if the D800 with its low pass filter was a bit kinder.

The idea of a 180/4.0 ED-IF Micro is a great one. Does anyone have a time machine available? 

Dave

[MEPER]

Maybe one of the nice 105mm micro Nikkors could be an option instead of a 200mm?
105mm is still a lot longer than 60mm......

[John Geerts]

Is the Nikon D850 and also the Z7 II too brutally high resolution for the 200/4.0 IF Micro? I'm wondering if the D800 with its low pass filter was a bit kinder.

The idea of a 180/4.0 ED-IF Micro is a great one. Does anyone have a time machine available? 

Dave

No, I had the LoCa problems also on the D800E, the Df and the D600.

[Birna Rørslett]

The latest AFS 105mm f/2.8 ED IF VR can be very troublesome with pronounced colour aberrations.

[Erik Lund]

Is the Nikon D850 and also the Z7 II too brutally high resolution for the 200/4.0 IF Micro? I'm wondering if the D800 with its low pass filter was a bit kinder.

The idea of a 180/4.0 ED-IF Micro is a great one. Does anyone have a time machine available? 

Dave

I recall that the 180mm f/2.8 ED Ais should do quite well on a PN11 extension ring, added bonus is that it has decent tripod collar as well

[Birna Rørslett]

The 180ED + PN-11 is a very nice combination, however one is locked to approx. 1:3 magnification.

I quickly replace the AFS 105/2.8 Micro with the Voigtländer 125/2.5. At present I'm eagerly awaiting the 105 Micro in native Z mount and do hope Nikon finally got their act together.

[David H. Hartman]

Maybe one of the nice 105mm micro Nikkors could be an option instead of a 200mm?
105mm is still a lot longer than 60mm......

The reason a person would want a 200mm close up lens is for the free working distance for example when photographing shy insects. The insect has a comfort zone. When you get too close it flies away. If it's a frog it jumps, etc.

Which reminds me of an article in once read by B. F. Skinner where he explained how to swat a fly. Hold your hand over the fly. Slowly lower your hand until the fly squats. At this point you have reached the outer limit of the fly's comfort zone. Stop. If you move your hand closer the fly will jump and fly away. Without lifting your hand for extra speed and impact immediately bring your hand down on the fly. Your success rate will be quite high. If however you lift your hand slightly for extra speed and impact you will alert the fly and it will jump and fly to safety. Try it! It works! You may wish to wash your hand after your experiment.

I really hoped the 200/4.0 IF Micro would work out but even with the Axial Color Aberration correction it's a no go.

Dave

[Erik Lund]

Maybe one of the nice 105mm micro Nikkors could be an option instead of a 200mm?
105mm is still a lot longer than 60mm......

As Dave writes, 200mm gives you more working distance.
However, this is often not the case for internal focusing designs - specially not up close where the 'focus breathing' of the optics loose focal length.
Not all IF designs do,, just see the long debate on this for the 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S zooms where the lenses behave very different from each other.
So a unit focusing lens is often preferred for macro work when working distance is important.
This is why I love the 105mm f/4 Ais Micro Nikkor. Often the best compromise.

[aerobat]

Many thanks for the lively discussion. Actually I willl use the Macro lens on a D850.
As I found out many of the Macro lenses > 100mm aren't easily available on the market.
The Sigma's e.g. are currently out of stock everywhere. Maybe settling on a 100mm-ish lens is the solution.
Did anyone try the Tamron 90mm? This seems to be quite a nice lens.