GeneralIt is often the case that you hear people saying something in the direction of: "If you're serious about macro, you need a 200mm lens". This might or might not be true for your individual needs, but it is an axiom in photography, for what it's worth. As a result, many people try to get their hands on a 200mm macro lens, and they quickly realize that the options are not many - and they're usually very expensive. This old micro-Nikkor AI 200mm f/4 lens seems like a very good deal. But is it really so?
|No complaints, optically. IF you count your pixels, it's not as tack-sharp wide-open as something like the Tamron 90mm, but it's what I'd call "good enough"|
Pros/Cons+ Well built, no complaints at all. Way better than the micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AF-S VR
+ manual focus is well implemented, allows for good precision.
+ Very good optical quality, no real complaints. Good bokeh, too
- f/4 doesn't look that bad on paper, until you realize the viewfinder is darker than f/2.8 - it can be critical for macro work.
- on the chunky side. Not something you wanna have around your neck while walking around
- wide-open is a tiny bit softer than more modern lenses, but I really don't think it's worth worrying about.
Intended UsersGreat for:
- As a dedicated macro lens is great, particularly for things you need to keep away (e.g. bugs)
- Particularly good for those trying to experiment with the distance before committing to a more expensive lens.
- patient people, who enjoy taking their time to set-up
|Can you use it for other things, too? Well, yeah... Kinda. If they don't move a lot - or at all|
- well, impatient people! This is a lens that requires support, and taking your time. Heck, macro is a kind of photography that requires particular patience.
- If you're looking for a lens to be used for anything other than macro, look elsewhere. Too heavy, too large, no autofocus, no VR.
- Entry-level DX. No metering, either.