Nikon Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4 D (IF) ED Interchangeable Lens Review

Reviews > Nikon Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4 D (IF) ED Interchangeable Lens Review

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Category: Interchangeable Lenses

Nikon Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4 D (IF) ED -

Posted: 11th July 2005
Print Article Add Comment Add CommentJargon Buster: Off Jargon Buster: Off

Micro Nikkor 200mmThis lens is the longest focal length in Nikon’s line-up of Macro lenses. Nikon call them Micro, but they do the same job as everybody else’s Macro lenses and that is to produce images that are a 1:1 ratio on the film or sensor. Not only is it Nikon’s longest, but the longest prime macro lens available. We take a look at how it performs.

Specification

  • Focal Length 200mm
  • Aperture f/4
  • Angle of view N/Aº
  • Filter size 62mm
  • Construction 13/8 elements/groups
  • Focus type Internal
  • Closest focus 500mm (1:1)
  • Weight 1190g
  • Dimensions 76x193mm
  • Mounts available Nikon
  • Tripod bush Yes,
  • Price (SRP) £1300

Build and Handling
The lens comes supplied in a hard, tubular leatherette case that immediately shouts quality at you. The case is lined with brown velvet that further re-enforces this feel. Withdrawing the lens from the case reveals a solid looking piece of equipment, metal bodied, with a huge focus ring that occupies almost half the barrel.

Immediately in front of the mount is the aperture ring with a lock at f/32 for modern auto cameras. The non-removable tripod mount ring takes up the next 32mm. The fact that the mount could not be removed did not prove a problem for two reasons, firstly, the lens proved virtually impossible to hand hold and secondly the mount itself was fairly low profile and did not protrude.

Forward of this is a distance window which is marked with a depth-of-field scale that is safely in the category of ‘completely useless’! Marked at f/32 only, it looked more like an arrowhead and only served to highlight one of the biggest drawbacks of this type of lens. More later. Alongside is a limit switch for the focus.

Next up is the AF/MF switchover ring, a dated affair with a small press-button lock. The remainder of the lens barrel is taken up with over 75mm of focus ring, which has a very nice feel to it, something that is handy as the full focus travel takes three quarters of a turn.

Autofocusing was painfully slow and quite noisy by modern standards. It was, however, accurate to the selected focus point on the camera. It is not possible to over-ride the autofocus manually without changing the switch to manual.

Optical Quality
This lens is an adequate performer, but again by modern standards, not outstanding. Due to the long focal length (for a macro), focussing is critical as very little depth-of-field is achievable. Distortions and aberrations of all kinds are well controlled, as they should be with the inclusion of ED glass. Sharpness is good within this limited depth-of-field.


At /f5.6 the DOF is negligible


At f/9 it has improved, but not much better

At f/13. Still not great


Nikon 200mm set at f/4

Nikon 200mm set at f/8

 

 

 

Click on each of these two comparison photos to view full size versions

Below is our lens test data. To find out how to use this graph look at this article: How we test lenses

Verdict
Despite its obvious quality, this lens does seem to be a little long in the tooth. More suited to specialised macro duties on a tripod than as a general purpose macro lens, it prove extremely hard to hand hold and get decent results. If you are thinking that the long focal length will be ideal for chasing bugs and butterflies, you will need to go crashing through the undergrowth with a tripod in tow! Consider a 70-200mm VR and extension ring instead. A lens in need of an update.

In summary the main positive points of the Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4 D (IF) ED are:
Exceptional build quality
Good tripod collar (needed)
Good CA/distortion control

Negative points are:
Geriatric autofocus
Dated switching
Narrow depth-of-field

Check the latest price of the Micro Nikkor 200mm f/4 D (IF) ED here and help support the site.

Test by Ian Andrews www.wildaboutkent.co.uk

Explore More

Panasonic Lumix G X VARIO 12-35mm f/2.8 Lens Review

Panasonic Lumix G X 12-35mm f/2.8 Lens Review

Gary Wolstenholme reviews the brand new Panasonic Lumix G X ...

Carl Zeiss ZF Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 Lens Review

Carl Zeiss ZF Distagon T* 15mm f/2.8 Lens Review

Gary Wolstenholme reviews the new ultra wide-angle Carl Zeis...

Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 Lens Review

Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6

Gary Wolstenholme reviews the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200...

Join ePHOTOzine and remove these ads.

Comments

Leif
7
642 forum posts
1 Jul 2007 - 11:17 AM
0

I would like to make a correction to the review. DOF is a function of image magnification and aperture, assuming a fixed circle of confusion. So all 200mm F4 macro lenses will have the same DOF at a given aperture.

Autofocus is rarely if ever used for macro, so that is not relevant if macro is the concern. The reason the auto-focus is slow is in part because the focus has a long play, which is exactly what you want for macro, where fine adjustments are needed. As far as I know all macro lenses have somewhat slow auto-focus. Optically I would say the review sample was a duffer, at least if the example pictures are anything to go by. On a D200 my sample is incredibly sharp across the entire frame from F4 to F11, and sharp at F16. It is excellent, but not stunning, in the non-macro range i.e. not a match for the 180mm F2.8.

Regarding the comment on preferring a zoom + diopter, in my opinion a tripod, or other support, is near essential for macro shots, regardless of the exact equipment used (assuming sharpness is critical).

The author refers to "dated switching" which I take to mean the auto-focus engage-disengage switch. That is a fair point, though I never use AF on mine.

The reviewer says "A lens in need of an update.". I strongly disagree.

One failing the author does not mention is the lack of proper weather sealing. I often find myself taking pictures in drizzle, and I constantly worry about water ingress causing damage. The manual specifically says to avoid getting it wet. I believe the Canon equivalent is weather sealed.

- Original Poster Comments
- Your Posts

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.