How good is the 200mm Pre-AI Nikkor?

chip j · Oct 2, 2016

I keep reading that it doesn't compare well w/more modern lenses. The AI has a sloppy built-in hood that I greatly dislike. The older one has a very finely made built-in hood. Thanks, anyone.

BMbikerider · Oct 2, 2016

The one I had a good number of years ago was reasonably decent but I found the AI and later are significantly better. The non Ai wasn't bad, just the later one was an improvement.

jimjm · Oct 2, 2016

Haven't shot with the pre-AI version myself, but I've also read a number of reviews saying it's not as good as the AI and later. Nikon actually revised the optical formula and cosmetics of the pre-AI lens less than a year before introducing the AI version. According to Braczko's book, the pre-AI lens with serial #6700003 and up should be optically identical to the AI and AIS.

That being said, I have the AI version and the built-in hood works just fine. No looseness or slop at all. It's actually the sharpest Nikon lens I have at around 200mm, compared against several MF and AF zooms and the 180/2.8 AI.

awty · Oct 2, 2016

I recently picked up an auto in mint condition, they aren't very expensive if you look around. Its built like a tank and is quite heavy. I haven't used any of the latter models.

Dont have any decent photos yet, but that's probably just me.

markbarendt · Oct 2, 2016

Here's a good resource http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Dan Fromm · Oct 2, 2016

I bought one in 1970. OK (= usable) at distance, soft near its close focusing distance. I eventually replaced it with a 200/4 MicroNikkor AI, the worst of the MicroNikkors and also not particularly good.

fstop · Oct 2, 2016

chip j said:
I keep reading that it doesn't compare well w/more modern lenses. The AI has a sloppy built-in hood that I greatly dislike. The older one has a very finely made built-in hood. Thanks, anyone.

It doesn't compare at all.The newer lenses are better, although the older ones can be had dirt cheap.

Leigh B · Oct 2, 2016

fstop said:
It doesn't compare at all.The newer lenses are better...

Modern lenses (perhaps the last 20-30 years) benefit dramatically from computerized optical design.

In the early years of computers that process was expensive, so reserved for high-end lenses.

Since PCs became common, it's almost free, so all lens makers have used it for all lenses for the past few decades.

- Leigh

chip j · Oct 2, 2016

OH DARN! (Actually I have the AIS version, and the hood tilts awkwardly when extended--looks like 2 cents. I wonder if this can be fixed?).

Paul Howell · Oct 2, 2016

jimjm said:
Haven't shot with the pre-AI version myself, but I've also read a number of reviews saying it's not as good as the AI and later. Nikon actually revised the optical formula and cosmetics of the pre-AI lens less than a year before introducing the AI version. According to Braczko's book, the pre-AI lens with serial #6700003 and up should be optically identical to the AI and AIS.

I had a pre AI version that was very good, got in 1970 so was likely made in the late 60s. I had it converted to AI, later traded it in for a AI lens that was mulitcoated. For the price seems to be a good buy. On the other hand my Pentax M 42 4.5 is sharper but the sharpest of the time that I have owned or own is the Konica 200 F4.

bsdunek · Oct 2, 2016

Bought one new back in the 70's. Wouldn't trade it for anything else. I hear all this about how the new lenses are so much better, but I don't see it. I'm not a big Popular Photography reader, but, their tests sure don't show me that lenses are better than, say, the 80's. All I see is a bunch of cheap looking and feeling, plastic lenses. I must be getting old, but I'll keep my Nikon F's and the lenses that go with them. Made out of metal and very durable.

Nokton48 · Oct 2, 2016

chip j said:
OH DARN! (Actually I have the AIS version, and the hood tilts awkwardly when extended--looks like 2 cents. I wonder if this can be fixed?).

I'vd fixed many built-in hoods that tilt. You have to take the front of the lens apart enough to remove the outer hood, then replace, or at least re-glue, the velvet that provides the inner cushioning. Not too hard to do, if you are handy.

I had a 200mm f4 back in the seventies and I always really liked it. Yes it was big but Man was it sturdy.
It was always sharp enough for me. Shot lots of published photojournalism with it.
Ten years ago I picked one up at a camera show for a friend. Cost me $25
I paid $125 for mine new back in the '70s. It was a store display unit so it was discounted.

Cholentpot · Oct 2, 2016

I bought one off a forum, it came in bashed to hell. I nursed it back and it's being held together by toothpicks. Really.

It works great for me, I've been using it with my Nikkormat (I only have a split prism for my F3) and I've liked the results so far. Truth be told, if I was looking for Superduper extra sharpy sharp sharp I wouldn't be using 35mm film. I like when my lenses have 'flavor' so I may be a little biased.

chip j · Oct 2, 2016

My AIS I got new, and it's hardly been used. How can the velvet be bad, unless it's a defect (grey market, you know). I have a like-new, shiny sticker and all, pre-AI, but I'm afraid to use it!

nyoung · Oct 2, 2016

Have owned a few pre ai 200/4s. They are fine lenses within their limits. If you can focus an f4 lens they're fine. Probably not the best choice for color work just because of advances in coatings. Nowadays they trade around $60 making them the lightest and best 200s under a hundred bucks. That said, if you ever get to shoot a 180/2.8 you'll never look at a 200 again.

Leigh B · Oct 2, 2016

bsdunek said:
Bought one new back in the 70's. Wouldn't trade it for anything else.
I hear all this about how the new lenses are so much better, but I don't see it.

That's not surprising.

Manufacturing technology has made dramatic advances in the computer age.
Consequently the average quality has improved substantially while the variability has diminished.

Earlier manual techniques exhibit much more variability from one example of a product to any other.
That means some are much worse than the average, but also that some are much better than the average.

It seems you found one of the good ones. That's great.

- Leigh

awty · Oct 2, 2016

Just took a few photos from the front porch using digital camera, overcast.

chip j · Oct 3, 2016

Very romantic color in the bottles!

mweintraub · Oct 3, 2016

I got one (pre-ai that was Ai'd) in a kit and wasn't interested in it until I tested it. I was pleasantly surprised.

flavio81 · Oct 3, 2016

chip j said:
I keep reading that it doesn't compare well w/more modern lenses. The AI has a sloppy built-in hood that I greatly dislike. The older one has a very finely made built-in hood. Thanks, anyone.

Hi Chip,

There are 2.5 (two and a half) optical versions of the pre-AI 200/4.0 lens. This is a lens introduced in 1961!!

The first version has 4 elements, stops down to f22. It exists on several cosmetic variations.

The second optical version still has 4 elements but was improved optically (see the corresponding "tale" in the "Nikkor: The thousand and one nights" website). This lens can be identified because stops at f32. The lens diagram is the same but the glass materials / curvatures / etc are not the same. From that page:

The Nikkor-Q Auto 200mm f/4 was developed by Masayuki Isshiki. (...) The basic design was completed in July 1960, and after verification of performance through trial production, the lens was released in July 1961. (...)

A couple of years after its initial release, the Nikkor-Q Auto 200mm f/4 underwent some minor modifications. These modifications enabled support for the color film that had just started to become common. Initially, only glass with an unexpectedly high blue transmissivity was used with the Nikkor-Q Auto 200mm f/4. Therefore, users complained that images captured with this lens were somewhat bluer than those taken with other lenses. With the need to change the materials used for the glass in order to correct colors, Nikon designers took the opportunity to make other improvements without changing the basic lens type.

Yoshiyuki Shimizu took over design from Isshiki, managing to increase sharpness by correcting spherical aberration, and to increase performance further. Functionality was also increased with structural modifications that enabled a reduction of the closest focusing distance from three meters to two, adoption of a seven-blade iris diaphragm to replace the earlier six-blade component, as well as reducing minimum aperture from f/22 to f/32.
The original models and the modified models could be differentiated by their closest focusing distance, minimum aperture, and name plates.

Then later comes the Nikkor-Q-C (multicoated) version which only adds multicoating.

I owned the first version. At f4 it was not tack sharp, had good resolution but with low contrast (low definition) -- halos around the detail. Some very slight chromatic abberation too (fringing). At f8 very good overall, no complaints.

Now, the great point is that this lens has excellent, excellent bokeh. Mouth watering bokeh. I've made a few nice-looking portraits with this lens.
The other overlooked point is that this lens balances/handles really well, at least with my Nikon F.

In the end i replaced it with a 200/4.0 AI which is tack sharp, and the bokeh is good although perhaps not as excellent.

So bottom line is that the first-version 200/4 pre-AI is a perfect lens for portraits.
The second-version 200/4 pre-AI might be the best of both worlds.

flavio81 · Oct 3, 2016

PS: I own/owned the following 200mm lenses:
Canon New FD 200/2.8 (internal-focus version)
Canon New FD 200/4.0
Canon FL 200/3.5
Nikon pre-AI 200/4
Nikon AI 200/4
Pentax SMC Takumar 200/4 (M42)

In my experience all 'established' manufacturers made excellent 200/4 lenses, there is no "dog" there.
From the list above the sharpest wide-open is perhaps the Nikon AI, the nicest to handle is the FD 200/4 (it has internal focus), the smallest is the Takumar. Stopped down they are all probably equally sharp.

chip j · Oct 3, 2016

MY! Flavio! You sure know a lot. Always interesting to read your posts Mine stops down to 32, so mow I'm fairly happy! Thanks Chip

chip j · Oct 3, 2016

BTW, I think it's the most beautiful lens Nikon ever made--it shouts "PROFESSIONAL".

flavio81 · Oct 3, 2016

chip j said:
MY! Flavio! You sure know a lot. Always interesting to read your posts Mine stops down to 32, so mow I'm fairly happy! Thanks Chip

Thanks Chip! Even if you had the first version, it would be an very nice lens. Last year i was in the hunt for the pre-AI 200/4.0 just to have an alternative, but at the end (as you can see) i own far too many 200mm lenses.

Another good lens in the mold of that 200/4 pre-AI is the 135/3.5 pre-AI, which is often overlooked since everybody is after the 105mm.

chip j said:
BTW, I think it's the most beautiful lens Nikon ever made--it shouts "PROFESSIONAL".

It is very beautiful, but then most Nikon pre-AI lenses are beautiful as well. Yes, indeed a professional lens, take a look on the Nikkor "thousand and one nights" website, they say that perhaps it was this lens the one who made pros prefer a SLR. (You can't reliably shoot a lens larger than 135mm using a rangefinder).

Jim Jones · Oct 3, 2016

My pre-AI 200mm was good enough, but there must have been better competitors.

How good is the 200mm Pre-AI Nikkor?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency