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

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.

Click to expand...

Photographs aren't judged in nationwide professional press photography competitions on the grounds of what lens they were taken with. I know the 180 mm f2.8 is a first class lens I used to sell them at a professional dealers to pro's in the 1970's and 1980's, but since so many of them in those days used them it's mistaken logic to assume any pictures taken with them that won prizes was due to the qualities of the lens but more what it was pointed at.

I don't know about the Nikon versions, but I certainly recall lusting after the Olympus Zuiko 180mm f/2.8 back in the day.

There's one for sale on this site right now. Buy it and see for yourself.

One factor of PJ's winning tons of prizes may have been that that particular lens was used often, for reasons all mentioned in above replies.

I had a friend with the 200 2.8, kind of a rare lens and a beauty. But the 180 was much smaller. The 80-200 2.8 push-pull was legendary, I still have one… lovely at 2.8 and sharpened up at F4. But a big beast of a lens. The 180 gave you 90% of that compression and bokeh-isolation, in an easier to hand hold form, and it was sharp wide open.

And beyond that - some lenses have a little mojo that is hard to spec out. I shot film with the 85 1.8 AF for years and enjoyed the lens. Put it away for years when the AF screw dropped out. But now, shooting commercial video with APS-C Digital Nikon bodies? That lens is just a wet dream. Hard to say why, but the color, contrast, the whole "look" with video (and I usually use it around F4 - try to keep an interview in focus at 1.8? yeah…) is just… I dunno. Yummy, sexy, yes yes yes.

A few decades ago, when I worked for a newspaper, I normally carried a Nikon F2 with a 180mm f/2.8, an 85mm f/1.8, and a 35mm.

The 180mm was an ideal lens for shooting sports, portraits, theatrical events, and concerts.

The 180mm lens, the F2 body, and the 85mm lens shown in the photo have survived years of use and abuse. The 85mm f/1.8 was the second Nikon lens I purchased and the 180mm was the third. Both were originally pre-AI lenses that I had AI’d by Nikon.

Before the 180, I was shooting with a 200mm f/3.5 Vivitar. I had to replace it because it was too slow and its poor resolution produced images of poor quality.

The 180mm was, and still is, one of my three sharpest prime lenses. The Nikon 55mm f/3.5 macro and the Nikon 105mm f/4 macro are the other two.


https://flic.kr/p/bFzfjZ

This makes me wanna grab an f3/f4 a 180 2.8 and play 1980s press photographer...

dynachrome said:

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.

Click to expand...

I owned one of the nFD 200/2.8 IF lenses years ago, and I used it with a Vivitar 7-element macro focusing 2x TC, which was the only FD TC I owned back then. An excellent TC, but it also had no protruding elements, so it worked fine with the Canon lens. These days I own a Canon 1.4x-A TC with a protruding front element. I can't say whether it would work with the 200 IF or not, because I no longer own a copy, but since it is an IF lens if I had to wager on it, I'd say it should work fine. Googling the topic would probably turn up an answer to the question.

Incidentally, these days I prefer Canon's IF lenses because of their focusing speed. With practice one can almost rival an AF camera at focusing with them.

dynachrome said:

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.

Click to expand...

I owned the later 200/2.8 New FD with Internal Focusing and I must say that the ergonomics were extremely good, you could handhold it and shoot it all day with no strain, focusing is really ssssssmooth and easy. Bokeh (or out-of-focus quality) is superb and resolution is extremely good. The only drawback is that i saw some longitudinal chromatic aberration, if you shot wide open or near wide open. But it only showed on extreme conditions (for example when I photographed a trumpeter with his bright, shiny trumpet on wide open daylight.)

Years ago I walked into Nikon House in Rockefeller Center and handled a 300mm Nikkor with IF. I think it was an f/4.5. The focusing seemed too fast compared to a regular helical focusing model. My only 300mm Nikkor is an old f/4.5 H manual focus model. I find it quite good. I have read that the newer 300s were sharper in the close range. I don't normally use a 300 for near subjects. I came close to getting a 200/2.8 Canon New FD IF but the seller did not know the difference between the two models. He sent me the first version. I liked the first one I had so much I accepted this second one. After an overhaul, it also works well. One day I will get the IF lens and then I'll see what all the fuss is about.

Very interesting to read about the experiences of people using this lens "back in the day". Myself, I got the ED 180 AiS quite recently and love the sharpness and separation at 2.8. Having an unlimited supply of film (I only shoot digital), means I can squeeze out a decent shot once in a while:

Cousins by scepticswe, on Flickr

Yes I was going to mention this that the 180mm ED AiS is a fine lens on a electronic emulsion.
Every 'system' camera and lens label had their versions of the Fast longer mid-teles. All of them were at least good, some truly great; many of them were seldom seen. The Nikon 180mm ED Ais was an excellent example, perhaps not the one and only very best, but certainly among the finest of the time and I stress this point: It was seriously great quality that was *accessible*. You saw them being used and the results from that use, and shooters could find and buy them at a camera shop. One of my photo editors at a newspaper I shot for said that was a lens she saved for in her starting years at the Detroit Free-press, spoke very reverently about it. I was an Olympus shooter at that point before switching to Nikon and while the Olympus version of 180mm was appealing I didn't hear great things about it and at that point had never actually seen one in use. The other pro who told me about the 180mm who shot Olympus said the 180mm f/2 was really the best they made for that system; he had one and then swapped it for the 250mm f/2 but at that point in the late 1980's early 1990's where I was used or even New high end olympus was quite rare.
So, to go back to the point; the Nikkor 180mm ED was exceptional quality in a lens that was accessible in price and availability. That's my opinion why so many shots were published with it.

cooltouch said:

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.

Click to expand...

Four pages of posts to "prove" how amazing this lens is and this is the only post which makes sense because it shows what this lens can actually do!