Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gryphon1911" data-source="post: 362241" data-attributes="member: 6541">Stopped by the camera store today, have not been there for a while looking for anything in particular...but I wanted to see if they had a manual focus 200/4 or 135/2.8.&nbsp;&nbsp; They had both!I was hoping that the 200/4 would be the AI version, but not today.&nbsp; Price seemed OK and I wanted to try it out, so pulled the trigger.&nbsp; Glass was not perfect, but I've used worse with little to no ill effects - usually just worse flair performance.So why the 200/4?&nbsp;&nbsp; While I love to use the Nikon 180/2.8 ED AIS, there are times when I don't need the f/2.8 or want to bring that size of a lens along.&nbsp;&nbsp; I heard good things about the 200/4.&nbsp;&nbsp; I used to own the 200/4 Q version and it performed well, but was very long.This is an example of the lens that I got.<a href="https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/200mm.htm">From this site.</a>[ATTACH=full]206627[/ATTACH]I did not get much &quot;trigger&quot; time with it on the Nikon Df today and I may try and work with it again here soon on the Z6.It was lunch time pretty soon after purchase, and got this image.&nbsp;&nbsp; Uncropped, and just a lightly massaged JPG from the Df.[ATTACH=full]206628[/ATTACH]I'm a fan of the bokeh here and in good light, f/4 is a good base to start anyway.&nbsp; I still need to shoot with it more and see how it compares to simialr shots against the 180/2.8 ED AIS.[ATTACH=full]206629[/ATTACH]Anyone else have thoughts on this lens?&nbsp;&nbsp; Would love to hear them!!&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />Share your images here too!!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gryphon1911, post: 362241, member: 6541"] Stopped by the camera store today, have not been there for a while looking for anything in particular...but I wanted to see if they had a manual focus 200/4 or 135/2.8. They had both! I was hoping that the 200/4 would be the AI version, but not today. Price seemed OK and I wanted to try it out, so pulled the trigger. Glass was not perfect, but I've used worse with little to no ill effects - usually just worse flair performance. So why the 200/4? While I love to use the Nikon 180/2.8 ED AIS, there are times when I don't need the f/2.8 or want to bring that size of a lens along. I heard good things about the 200/4. I used to own the 200/4 Q version and it performed well, but was very long. This is an example of the lens that I got. [URL='https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/200mm.htm']From this site.[/URL] [ATTACH type="full"]206627[/ATTACH] I did not get much "trigger" time with it on the Nikon Df today and I may try and work with it again here soon on the Z6. It was lunch time pretty soon after purchase, and got this image. Uncropped, and just a lightly massaged JPG from the Df. [ATTACH type="full"]206628[/ATTACH] I'm a fan of the bokeh here and in good light, f/4 is a good base to start anyway. I still need to shoot with it more and see how it compares to simialr shots against the 180/2.8 ED AIS. [ATTACH type="full"]206629[/ATTACH] Anyone else have thoughts on this lens? Would love to hear them!! :) Share your images here too!! [/QUOTE]

Verification