Nikon 180 f2.8 - Why is it so special?

nyoung · May 27, 2015

Looking through NPPA Best of Photojournalism volumes from the 80s and 90s I notice that the preponderance of prize winners - particularly in the feature categories - were shot on the 180/2.8. I have owned two of them as well as several 200s and a couple of 80-200 f 2.8 zooms and the 180 just has a different look from the 200s. What - in terms of its design and/or technology - is it that makes it so unique?

benjiboy · May 27, 2015

nyoung said:
Looking through NPPA Best of Photojournalism volumes from the 80s and 90s I notice that the preponderance of prize winners - particularly in the feature categories - were shot on the 180/2.8. I have owned two of them as well as several 200s and a couple of 80-200 f 2.8 zooms and the 180 just has a different look from the 200s. What - in terms of its design and/or technology - is it that makes it so unique?

Perhaps it was the talent of the photographers rather than the particular optic he used that won the prizes.

illumiquest · May 27, 2015

benjiboy said:
Perhaps it was the talent of the photographers rather than the particular optic he used that won the prizes.

You mean photography isn't just about the gear?

Xmas · May 27, 2015

benjiboy said:
Perhaps it was the talent of the photographers rather than the particular optic he used that won the prizes.

Or all the talented ones were rich enough to buy a /2.8?

Alan Gales · May 27, 2015

I bought a Zeiss 180mm f/2.8 back in the 1980's. Zeiss had just come out with the new 180 which had an electrical contact on it for program mode. My 180 was a camera store display model and I knew the camera sales people so I bought it at cost for $450.00. The retail price was $850.00 for a new one. It was mint and they told me it had never been out of the glass case.

The Nikkor version was said to rival the Zeiss in quality. These lenses were expensive but fast. A lot of your long lenses back then had a maximum aperture of f/4. They were great used as long portrait lenses outdoors. I loved mine.

The only problem was that I shot more kids playing than Sports Illustrated bikini models frolicking on private beaches.

nyoung · May 27, 2015

Maybe I wasn't clear. I thought someone here might have some insight to the TECHNICAL/ENGINEERING differences between the 180 and the 200s. The 180 has a particular quality in the way that a sharply focused subject "pops" out of the background. My students and I, over the years shot thousands of images with 180s and 200s. When I was working with pictures every day, I could take a mixed stack of 8x10s and sort them into stacks of 180s v 200s with about 90 percent accuracy. The "talent" of the photographer or quality of the photo has nothing to do with my question. Perfectly crappy pictures still have the "pop."

Richard S. (rich815) · May 27, 2015

Which 200 are you comparing to? The 200/4? Perhaps the extra stop gave that punch of DOF that made it more "pop"? The 180/2.8 most used was the ED version which is legendary and I've often pined for one, though I will say my 200/4 is one fine performer. And all that said I simply love my 180/2.8 Sonnar that I use with my Contax SLRs, I wonder what the formula difference is from that vs the 180/2.8 ED Nikkor.....?

Paul Howell · May 27, 2015

When I was a working PJ, 70s and 80s, Nikon was thought to be most the pro of the pro level systems. True, once in while I would meet another JP who used F1, Leicaflex, OM1, but the standard was a Nikon F, F1, or F2. That began to change in the mid 80s with Canon EOS. Because Nikon at that time was the camera most of us shot with Nikon lens, once in while I would see someone with a 3rd party lens.

I carried a 200 F4, which was a very good lens, the 180 at 2.8 was a stop faster and became very popular. I don't think the 180 was sharper than the 200, just faster. Nikon did make a 200 F2 but it was big, heavy and expensive.

My take is that at that time most pros used Nikon and the 180 2.8 was a popular lens so it shows up in the awards more often.

My go to lens was the 105 2.8, maybe if I sprung for the 180 I would have gotten more awards.

Richard S. (rich815) · May 27, 2015

PDH said:
When I was a working PJ, 70s and 80s, Nikon was thought to be most the pro of the pro level systems. True, once in while I would meet another JP who used F1, Leicaflex, OM1, but the standard was a Nikon F, F1, or F2. That began to change in the mid 80s with Canon EOS. Because Nikon at that time was the camera most of us shot with Nikon lens, once in while I would see someone with a 3rd party lens.

I carried a 200 F4, which was a very good lens, the 180 at 2.8 was a stop faster and became very popular. I don't think the 180 was sharper than the 200, just faster. Nikon did make a 200 F2 but it was big, heavy and expensive.

My take is that at that time most pros used Nikon and the 180 2.8 was a popular lens so it shows up in the awards more often.

My go to lens was the 105 2.8, maybe if I sprung for the 180 I would have gotten more awards.

I think this is the likely reason, well put.

Some good info on this legendary lens: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/180200mmnikkor/180mm.htm

benjiboy · May 27, 2015

illumiquest said:
You mean photography isn't just about the gear?

Exactly, any prat with money can buy equipment, but it won't buy talent and ability.

dnk512 · May 27, 2015

Yes, the photographer *is* the reason the pictures are great, but perhaps the question should be 'why so many good photographers choose the 180mm f2.8 to do their work with?'. To that I will say (comparing it to the lenses you mentioned)
- Great build, solid; great focusing action.
- Compact for its specs; easy to carry.
- Great image; nothing to fault in and out of focus.

I love using that lens, too. Many of my best images is with that lens even if my best is not as famous.
(Works great on cropped digital sensors on several camera brands)

Pioneer · May 27, 2015

benjiboy said:
Exactly, any prat with money can buy equipment, but it won't buy talent and ability.

That is a rather well-worn cliche benjiboy but the fact still remains that some excellent photographers, whether pro or not, tend to gravitate towards certain lenses in preference to others.

So, though you can't buy yourself into being an artist, some artists definitely prefer certain tools.

Your response does not explain why more prize winning photographs used that lens in the time period identified by the OP.

gone · May 27, 2015

The ED 80-200 2.8 zoom was/is a fantastic lens too. You get the same 'pop, when shooting those wide open. But ask yourself, which lens would you rather carry on a shoot? The big, bazooka like 80-200 zoom weighing in at nearly 3 pounds, or the 180 prime at roughly half that weight?

I think that that particular lens was popular not only for its focal length and speed, it also didn't scare small children (and large adults) when you pointed it at them. Which meant that more people were shooting it, and more pics were taken w/ it. Hence more awards. And it was a heck of a lot less wear and tear on the photographer. My walk around kit used to be an F4s w/ an ED 80-200 2.8 zoom. I must have been out of my mind. Nowadays, a Nikon FG w/ an H 50 2 lens seems like too much in the Florida heat.

The 200 is an f4 lens. Not as much 'pop' w/ that. You need a fast lens for that 3-D thing, shot wide open.

Paul Howell · May 27, 2015

Pioneer said:
That is a rather well-worn cliche benjiboy but the fact still remains that some excellent photographers, whether pro or not, tend to gravitate towards certain lenses in preference to others.

So, though you can't buy yourself into being an artist, some artists definitely prefer certain tools.

Your response does not explain why more prize winning photographs used that lens in the time period identified by the OP.

Pioneer is correct, pros and advanced shooters gravitated towards a pro system. Case in point my second SLR was a Konica T with 4 Konica lens. The Konica lens 55 1.2 and 50 1.7 were better than Nikon, I don't think that Konica ever made a bad lens. But to move up the food chain I need a pro level system, in 1970 that was Nikon. I needed a motor drive, the T or the T3 did not have motor drive, the T 4 only a winder. The newspapers, UPI, AP, the foreign wires all used Nikon as did the AF and Army, the Navy shot with Topcon and Canon. It was expected that a PJ would bring her/his own cameras and a basic lens set. The wires like UPI had an inventory of lens that I could memo out for special assignments, needed a Nikon for that. And if on assignment you needed to rent a lens, it was much easier to find and rent Nikon. Most large cities world wide had an authorized Nikon service center.

Some very good JP and newspaper folks used others system, Canon, Spotmatics, Minolta, Leica, but until AF and the EOS Nikon was the big dog.

Most the magazines, the National Press Photographer monthly magazine were filled with adds from Minolta and Olympus, but could never break into the market. I know that both the AF and LA Times (perhaps AP as well) tested Olympus, but the bodies did not hold up to daily rugged use.

Paul Howell · May 27, 2015

benjiboy said:
Exactly, any prat with money can buy equipment, but it won't buy talent and ability.

money cannot buy talent, but in a technology dominated art like photography have good tools that are reliable provides s talent and ability the means to a creative outlook.

Tom Taylor · May 27, 2015

I have the non-ED version of the 180 and it is sharp. I just ordered the 105mm Micro 2.8 from Japan on Monday and it's on its way.

Thomas

Mick Fagan · May 27, 2015

In its day, the Nikkor 180mm/2.8 ED lens was a perfect marriage for any pro photographer shooting colour transparency film. Any magazine work required colour separations for four colour printing. Having really well focused film with all three colours sharp was something any ED lens did exceptionally well

Working as I was back then, in a pro lab doing, amongst other things, running (with others) C41, E6 Dip N Dunk processors, with E6 running shed loads of 135 stuff for magazine work from sport photographers, quite a few of which dropped in to check out either a clip test, or just check out their work.

One noticed a trend, they invariably ran the minimum equipment they needed, but it also at the same time needed to cover as many bases as possible. Filter size played a bit into the equation as well. One would see the Nikkor 85/1.4 180/2.8 ED then either the 300/4.5 ED or the 400/5.6 ED. All these lenses ran a 72mm filter, making life pretty cheap and easy.

Then there was the wider stuff, first cab off the rank was often the 18/3.5 with CRC (Close Range Correction, floating elements to the rest of the world). It also ran a 72mm filter.

The rest of the wide to normal and slightly longer focal lengths stuff ran 52mm filters.

I saw and spoke to one photographer with the legendary Nikkor 300/2 IF-ED which ran internal 52mm filters. He covered automobile racing at the top level and was pretty good at it. His 300/2 IF-ED Nikkor was the same price as the average suburban house price in Melbourne at the time he purchased it.

He ran with the 85/1.4, 180/2.8 ED and the 300/2 IF-ED on three F3 bodies all with drives attached and the 18/3.5 in the bag. His work sort of stood well above most other 135 transparency stuff we developed. Firstly for the amount he shot, secondly for the accuracy of exposure, thirdly for accuracy of focus and lastly and very interestingly, for using 100 ASA film when almost all others were using 400 ASA film.

It was his work with these fast and beautifully made lenses, which made me desire using and/or owning them. I own the 85/1.4 and the 180/2.8 ED and they do pop and give that really easy to focus 3D effect in the viewfinder and allow me to make wonderful prints to this day.

Mick.

Christiaan Phleger · May 28, 2015

I can add my experience as a working news PJ during the 80'd and 90's.

Most newspapers (remember most cities had at least 2-3 dailies and perhaps more) had an amount of equipment that was issued to the PJ and that was usually 2 bodies, one flash and between 3-5 lenses, with longer or wider or specialized lenses being on a 'pool' basis. The standard kit was up to the individual but most included the 180mm which was a very fast and light and extremely well handling lens; the more use they got the smoother they got. It was also a very durable lens. In its day it was like a 70-200 2.8 lens; a lens that was fast flexible and sharp and nearly all pro's I knew shot it at one time or another, usually in use with either a 85 f/1.4 or the 105 f/1.8. Some guys would shoot a 25-50mm f/4 zoom with a 35mm f/1.4 as well which would cover about 90% of what you would need. Lots of guys carried a TC-201/200 just in case they really needed some reach when covering a spot news event (I personally feel that the results from this combination are quite amazing if you have the light to shoot at a decent shutter speed and/or shot with stability.).
The Nikon engineers really knew and provided a lens that satisfied a specific pro market, and those NPPA contest sure showed it.

Christiaan Phleger · May 28, 2015

Oh and Mick I got a chance to shoot with the 300f/2 and it still is an amazing optic.

RalphLambrecht · May 28, 2015

benjiboy said:
Exactly, any prat with money can buy equipment, but it won't buy talent and ability.

but it hides the lack of it well.

benveniste · May 28, 2015

In many ways a 180mm f/2.8 is a "goldilocks" lens for 35mm film.

It's long enough to "reach' across a room and capture the image.
It's fast enough to allow subject isolation.
It doesn't call unwanted attention when it's in use.
It's small and light enough to carry just because "you might need it."

That said, once professionals started adopting xx-200mm f/2.8 zooms, sales of 180mm f/2.8's plummeted. Nikon's sold fewer autofocus 180mm's than they did of the manual focus versions, and about two thirds of the autofocus sales were made more than 20 years ago. Currently they sell perhaps 500-800 copies a year.

bdial · May 28, 2015

My 180/2.8 was purchased from a newspaper photographer who had gone digital. It has been "well loved" and she told me it had been one of her favorite lenses.
I've not tried to compare it with my other optics, but I do like the size, weight and speed.
This thread makes me think I should go out and spend some "quality time" with it.

cooltouch · May 28, 2015

Years ago, I owned a Nikon AIs 180/2.8 ED and it was a special lens to me. Photos I took with that lens rival a good digital in sharpness. What earlier folks wrote about the good photographer gravitating toward good equipment just makes sense to me. It has always been a highly competitive field and the least advantage a pro could find that would set his or her work apart from their peers would be a very desirable one, seems to me. So it seems natural that the 180 ED would be sought after by the best in the business.

I think it probably bears emphasis that the AIs 180/2.8 ED was the optic that was the most sought after, more so than its predecessor, the non-ED version.

I'm surprised no one has uploaded a photo showing this lens at its best. I have only a couple available, but this is one of my favorites. Taken at an airshow. A6 Intruder cockpit. Nikon F2, AIs 180mm f/2.8 ED, Fujichrome 100, circa 1990. Note Garfield.

flavio81 · May 28, 2015

I guess it is "special" within the Nikon system due to having good speed, long reach, high IQ and being compact.
Otherwise, supposedly the Canon EF 200/2.8 is technically a better lens.

Me, i had the FD 200/2.8 which I liked a lot, but nowadays enjoy better the Canon FD 200/4 and the Nikon AI-S 200/4 because they are very light and compact, so I can carry them instead of carrying a 135mm lens.Both are very, very sharp and with very nice OOF rendering.

dynachrome · May 28, 2015

My 180/2.8 is a pre-ED version and is very sharp. I find all of the 200/4 Nikkors from the f/4 Q on to be very good. I use lenses in the 180-200 range more for distant subjects and I do not see any more "pop" with the 180 than with the 200. For closer work the 180 makes the finder brighter and easier to focus with than the slower 200/4 lenses. What about the 200/2 lenses? I don't know how often they were used hand held. Eventually I will get a 180 ED just to see what the fuss is all about. I have two Canon New FD 200/2.8 lenses (both 1st Version models) and find them to be excellent. They focus down to 6 feet, like the 180 Nikkor but provide slightly more magnification. I have used the 200/2.8 New FD lenses with the Canon FD 2X and other 2X teleconverters with good results. Some people say they prefer the later 200/2.8 New FD IF model but I don't know how well that lens works with teleconverters. I think that many people use manual focus telephotos with the wrong focusing screen and the focusing aid in the center becomes distracting. I like to use grid screens with telephotos. For the Nikons that's an E screen and for the Canon F-1/F-1n it's the D or L D. I have the 200/3 Vivitar Series 1 in mounts for Konica and M42. Two of my Konica bodies have been modified and have Nikon E screens. The Vivitar focuses all the way down to 4 feet and is also a good performer.

Nikon 180 f2.8 - Why is it so special?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency