Nikkor 180 2.8 ED or is the Regular Glass OK?

Over the years have heard a lot of hype and old wives tales regarding the ED version of this lens.

a) IS it worth the extra 100-125$ on the used market just for the ED version?
b) Is the optical formula for the non ED lens the same?
c) I don't think Nikon would put out a lens of this quality if it were inferior in any way....?
d) Using it on FM2 and F3 body for portrait use outdoors, nothing too exotic.
e) What would I notice in my pictures, greater clarity, more contrast? I will be shooting pretty
much wide open at f 2.8-4.

Thanks for your input, I will be purchasing one or the other to compliment my 105mm when I
need a little more reach.....

Harlequin

When new- the price difference was much more than $100 or so. I have the original Nikkor-P 180/2.8, "ugly/user"- very sharp, not ED glass. It was very cheap.

If this is a lens that you will use a lot, go for the ED version.

I've been thinking about this lens too. I used the ED version when it was new, and it really is a great lens. I used and liked the earlier Nikkor P version too, so for me it will probably come down to which version shows up at the right price first. The ED version really is a bargain, I've seen them go for as little as $150 in pretty respectable condition.

This 180/2.8 ED AIS was $200. Near mint condition (very minor paint wear in one spot as you can see). Glass excellent. I was amazed at the images it made.

harlequin said:

Over the years have heard a lot of hype and old wives tales regarding the ED version of this lens.

a) IS it worth the extra 100-125$ on the used market just for the ED version?
b) Is the optical formula for the non ED lens the same?
c) I don't think Nikon would put out a lens of this quality if it were inferior in any way....?
d) Using it on FM2 and F3 body for portrait use outdoors, nothing too exotic.
e) What would I notice in my pictures, greater clarity, more contrast? I will be shooting pretty
much wide open at f 2.8-4.

Thanks for your input, I will be purchasing one or the other to compliment my 105mm when I
need a little more reach.....

Harlequin

Click to expand...

Yes I believe it is worth the extra Dollars/Euros/Roubles or whatever currency you use.

I tried both versions on my F3 many moons ago, when with a group of photographers where two photographers had both versions. There was certainly a contrast difference in the ensuing B&W negatives from the ED version. The day in question was a low contrast day and a group of us were waiting for better weather (sunshine) to do some picture taking.

In reasonably quick succession, I used both versions of the 180mm lens on the same subject. with my tripod mounted F3 body. The resultant negatives were both very good, but the ED negatives just had a subtle contrast kick; both on the light box and in prints.

From then on I was on a not so desperate mission to acquire an f/2.8 180 ED Nikkor. Comes with a built in hood.

Eventually I did get one and have been very happy with it ever since. It is not a lens I use that much, but when I do, I am usually very, very happy with the results.

The ED version in colour has virtually no apparent colour fringing; well, none that I could detect in my own colour prints anyway. This negative was really hard to print, but print it successfully I did. I took this shot hand held, wide open, with the intention of getting a blurred background. The colour cast on the web version doesn't look too flash compared to the print, which I just viewed again, but that is a result of me not really being able to get correct colour electronically at least a decade ago. The print is cropped on 300 x 400mm sized paper and crystal clear.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/index.php?media/sleep-walking.9075/

With B&W printing, the extra contrast available with the ED version would certainly be the way I would go. I went that way and have been a happy little camper since.

I have found for more formal portraiture, using a tripod with this lens is better. That is your call, but I can tell you with an F3 body with the MD4 drive attached and the 180 ED lens, one tires quite quickly. Some of my best portraits with this lens, bust shots mainly, have been done with the whole shebang tripod mounted. I use a ball joint for quick movements with instant lock, fire a frame or two, then move around again and repeat; makes for wonderfully different portraits with great compression characteristics. I would like to have a tripod collar for this lens, but I don't use it enough to warrant working out if it is possible to do this

As an aside, you may wish to entertain the 135 f/2.8 Nikkor. It is a definite step up from the 105 f/2.5, comes with a built in hood as well and is, by comparison with the 180, very hand holdable.

That said, the 180 is a pearler of a length, from there I go to my 300, which feels about the right focal length change.

Mick.

Ps: I am not an old wife.

I am not a regular Nikon user but many skip the 180 and get the 70-200 f2.8 ED.

In 1971, I purchased a brand new 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor.

I have been using the same 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens since I purchased it from Altman's Camera in Chicago in 1971 for $386.

The 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor has been one of my three Nikkor lenses with the best image quality (55mm macro and 105mm macro were the other two).

In the early 1980s, when Nikon issued the AI version with ED glass, I decided not to upgrade but to have Nikon convert my pre-AI lens to an AI lens.

If I remember correctly, the 180mm ED glass version is 5 lenses in 5 groups while the pre-AI glass is 5 lenses in 4 groups.

Around 2005, I compared the Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 with the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 80-200mm f/2.8. I was surprised that at the 180mm focal length, the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S and the 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms were equal in image quality to my older 180mm prime.

180mm lens by Narsuitus, on Flickr

Narsuitus, I've had the same experience... My 180 had that same cross-hatch rubber grip, and I had the factory AI conversion, etc. I still use mine, and I find it equal to the newest 70-200 2.8 zoom.

The Nikon 180mm f2.8 ED lens is a great lens but If your main reason buying it is to use it for portraiture it's too long because it compresses and flattens the human features, I personally wouldn't go any longer than 135mm to shoot tight headshots, for this reason, I tend to shoot portraits with an 85mm f1.2, a 100mm f1.8 and very rarely do I use my 135mm f2 lens.

I have the P and PC versions of the pre-ED 180s and find them to be quite good. I thought of looking for an ED but I have the 200/2.8 Canon New FD and 200/2.8 Canon New FD IF for my Canon cameras and they are very good. I have used the first New FD version with a Canon 2X teleconverter with good results. I don't know what Mick means when he says that the 135/2.8 is a step up from the 105/2.5. I have a number of the older (pre-AI) 135/2.8 Nikkors and like them for their beautiful out of focus rendition. If Mick is referring to the 135/2.8 AI then I have no experience with that lens. The 105/2.5 (old or new) is very good. If I need to get closer with a 135 I will use a 135/2.3 Vivitar Series 1 or a Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focusing.

If you are considering astrophotography the latest AFn and AF-D versions are the best optically and show lower CA and sharper stars in the corners. I've read this from many sources and confirmed it myself. I have never tried a non-ED version, but it was my understanding that even though it was not labeled ED it was the same optical formula. My 180mm AFn is superior to any of the 70-200mm zooms wide open. It's a pretty darn good lens wide open:
http://www.pbase.com/rick_jack/image/90291998/original It's also better than the Canon 200mm f2.8L @ f2.8. For regular photography it's a beauty for anything and always packed in my bag.

dynachrome said:

I have the P and PC versions of the pre-ED 180s and find them to be quite good. I thought of looking for an ED but I have the 200/2.8 Canon New FD and 200/2.8 Canon New FD IF for my Canon cameras and they are very good. I have used the first New FD version with a Canon 2X teleconverter with good results. I don't know what Mick means when he says that the 135/2.8 is a step up from the 105/2.5. I have a number of the older (pre-AI) 135/2.8 Nikkors and like them for their beautiful out of focus rendition. If Mick is referring to the 135/2.8 AI then I have no experience with that lens. The 105/2.5 (old or new) is very good. If I need to get closer with a 135 I will use a 135/2.3 Vivitar Series 1 or a Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focusing.

Click to expand...

Hmm, bad choice of words on my part.

With regard to the step up from the 105 to the 135, I was meaning the reach capability, or the ability to have a closer cropped picture from the same distance.

The 135 f/2.8 from the mid seventies onwards, was a lens that had a sweet spot, it was better than the earlier unit, which I tried, and nowhere as expensive as the 135 f/2 which I sort of lusted after, until I tried one.

For portraiture, the two best units I have used and also now own, are the 85 f/1.4 followed very closely by the 105 f/2.5. Running two bodies one with the 85 and the other with the 105 in a portrait session, my tendency is usually the 85.

The 180 f/2.8 ED is a terrific lens, I have used it alongside one of Nikon's zooms when the F4 came out. I was given an F4 to use for six weeks and one zoom, which was around 70-200 or 80-200 with a constant aperture of f/2.8. Brilliant lens, but heavy as anything and most importantly for me, severely expensive when released. It also had a different (larger) filter size than were my standard filter sizes, which were 52mm and 72mm.

Mick.

I think another consideration for outdoor portraiture is the weight, balance and the general ergonomics of a lens, I have a 70 - 210 f3.5 zoom lens but never use it for portraits I much prefer my 85, or 100 mm lenses because they're lighter and much quicker and easier to handle.

I have and have used all of the versions and sub versions of the Nikkor; P; P.C; ED: AF and AFD (no optical difference). The pre ED version is still a fine optic and for portraits the optical 'challenges' this optic has at common portrait distances makes a creatively flexible lens. I prefer the later Ai or P.C first version and found the P version having just a bit more flare in backlighting situations but both have a lovely draw close in for details and portraits; at common 'sports' distances this lens sharpens up very well and at f/4 with good light is nearly unequalled as sharp medium telephoto. Its no wonder the sports shooters of the day favored this lens before the 70-200 zooms took over. The ED version is yes a noticeable improvement especially shot side by side ( I did this a lot btw) particularly in color, contrast and wide open sharpness. Older photographers at my old newspaper would claim it was Nikon's best lens period and I saw many fine prints made with this lens from many good shooters in the darkroom wash sink. If it can be believed yes the AF versions is again an improvement in sharpness, color and contrast but I feel especially with a direct comparison with the older version that the AF bokeh suffers just a bit. The AF does have much better close up performance and with an extension tube or close up filter makes a quick yet surprisingly capable macro/tele very very handy for a fast moving pre-ceremony bridal detail shots photo session (for example!). The Pre-ED 180mm I think a vastly underrated lens capable of high quality images if shot well and it does certainly have a lot of character when shot 'less well' ha! Of all my 180's I would keep my old P.C over the others; If I were to in this day purchase just one it'd would be the ED or the AF if you shoot more Digital and need AF however some really great deals are found for the Pre-ED lens. So you may yet get a few versions and do a few tests for yourself! Enjoy photography.
*(final thought; all of these Nikkor's were the very best optics for their era (perhaps the AF was overshadowed by the AF 80-200) and the build quality is superb; if you find one thats a bit rough no fear they were built to be used hard and often)

From an optical design perspective, consider a lens design updated with ED glass. The ED glass types have low dispersion and high index. These allow better color correction for a given radius of curvature, or shallower curvatures for a given color correction. The latter is a subtly desirable trait because shallower curvatures tend to allow for better manufacturing tolerances in the design. So for a production run of optics, the production yield will be higher and performance will be more consistent (less chance of getting a "lemon). The designer could do this, or he/she could design for better performance at faster speeds compared to older designs, but at lower production yields.

A secondary benefit is that newer ED glass means the designs are optimized with modern design software like Zemax or Code V. There is an inherent improvement due to the improved ability to characterize, analyze, and optimize the optical design with the capabilities of modern design software compared to 10-20 years ago as well as the processing power of the modern computer. This shows up in better capability to improve secondary characteristics such as controlling stray light and ghosting (contrast).

ED glass types also typically don't transmit as well in the UV (and into the deep violet), so you get a corresponding reduction in "haze" effects and thus better contrast for landscapes.

So ED glass in optics benefit from better optical performance as well as being available for modern design tools which provide their own inherent benefit.

darinwc said:

I am not a regular Nikon user but many skip the 180 and get the 70-200 f2.8 ED.

Click to expand...

Which is a pity (to them, not to us!). The 180 is one of the most undervalued lenses in my opinion. I have the 180 AF-D, paid $300 for it in really good condition, it is one of my all-time favorites! I had a 80-200 AF-D too, never made A-B comparisons but I much prefer the pictures coming out of the 180. It works really well on d*g*t*l too, by the way.

If you have an autofocus body (or even a digital) I highly recommend to fork out the extra dough for the AF-D version.

The 180/2.8 ED AIs is one of the sharpest, contrastiest Nikon lenses I've ever owned. If you're trying to decide on whether or not to get the ED or regular version, believe me, the ED is worth the extra $$. Here's one of my most favorite shots I took with my 180/2.8 ED. A6 Intruder cockpit. Taken at the Chino Airshow back in about 1991 or so. Nikon F2, Fujichrome 100. Note Garfield:



In addition to the Nikon 70-200/2.8 ED as an alternative, there is also the Tamron 80-200/2.8 LD, which, at 200mm, is the functional equivalent of the 180/2.8 ED.

Don't take my word for it. Go to the Tamron website, adaptall-2.com and compare the Modern Photography lens tests for the Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 LD here:
http://adaptall-2.com/lenses/30A.html

with the Modern Photography lens tests for the Nikon 180/2.8 ED here:
http://adaptall-2.com/lenses/63B.html

Pretty remarkable, eh?

As I mentioned in my above post; yes most certainly the ED and AF are noticeable improvements but the older Pre-ED versions are quite excellent on their own merits and I think offer quite a bit of character when pushed hard against their natural limits. A quick glance at the auction site shows a large amount of low priced Pre-ED 180's which is far from their true worth as a imaging optic. A huge bargain.