That's a lens I can't find a review from the usual suspects. Anyone out there have any experience with it?
EDIT:
These lenses were made to work only with the F3AF; on modern Nikon DSLR's, they continue to draw power from the battery but can only function as MF lenses. Apparently well-corrected optics.
j.liam wrote:
That's a lens I can't find a review from the usual suspects. Anyone out there have any experience with it?
EDIT:
These lenses were made to work only with the F3AF; on modern Nikon DSLR's, they continue to draw power from the battery but can only function as MF lenses. Apparently well-corrected optics.
I had one years ago on my Kodak SLR/c. It was OK, but not as well corrected as the Nikon 180/2.8 ED.
I've had two copies of it. It's excellent! What's to say? It does have some PF and some of that OOF red/green CA but it's quite minimal. The 180/2.8 mentioned above is better IMO as well but not by much. Both are incredibly sharp, the 200 might have a little softer bokeh but at 180 and above most lens's bokeh are uber soft anyway so it's not all that different.
In all, bang for the buck, I still prefer the Takumar I mentioned on the previous page tho. You'll strain your eyes trying to see the difference between the takumar and the 180 ED. And the Takumar is more colorful.
I have a Vivitar Series 1 200.3 that is very sharp, but suffers from CA, although easily corrected in post processing. I have a second M42 copy of this lens that I will sell. I also have a Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 Zebra that cost me $100. It is very usable at f/2.8, and controls CA fairly well, but it is not totally absent. The downside of this lens is its size and weight. I'd also consider the 200/2.8 version of this lens, although it too is big.
And the Takumar is more colorful.
