I recently took a huge step back from the full frame Nikon mirrorless world. I found your channel while researching the D7500. Due to your channel, I have now bought the D7500, the Nikon 180 2.8 D, and I opted to go with a mint 18-200 2.8G VR2, instead of the 18-140. I already have a 50mm 1.8G, and the 35 1.8. I think that rounds out a very nice kit. Thank you for all of your great info!
The first lens I bought when I switched to Nikon 20 years ago.... Love it for head shot, nature photography, macro with extension rigs... Just one comment : some people complain about the sharpness wide open. It's difficult to explain, but at f/2.8, images are shrarp but with little fuziness around the details, that completely disappear at f/4. This fuzziness makes the image quite soft, but details are here. This is what makes the portrait so smooth in my opinion. Probably you can obtain the same result with a modern razorsharp lens with some appropriate post traitment but I don't know how to do it...
This is one of my favorite lenses. I have never tried to shoot animals at the zoo, but I have done portrait work with it. It is outstanding. At such a reasonable price, it is worth trying.
Yes, this is a great lens, I've been using it for 30 years ! I just found the 1986 version, the one with the thin focusing ring, and I love it because you only have to move the switch on the camera's body to go from autofocus to manual focusing (optic is the same as newer model).
Wonderful review of a wonderful lens. I have this lens as well as a similar 300mm F4 with the same crinkle finish, both chosen for their color rendition and optical quality. Cheers!
I’ve had this lens for a good number of years and, it is still my favourite ones to use the telephoto. Unfortunately, with the newer cameras, it’s manual unless you use an older DSLR with the motor built into the camera. That’s why I’ve kept my D700 because with that Camera. This lens is awesome, thanks for sharing your thoughts , and I agree. with you on the fact that it is an excellent lens even in 2024
Coming here to say thanks, after some time with my APSC and trying out FF system, I decide to buy FF body in a month, I already have the glass ready so I'm going for it! My APSC will still be useful if I want to carry lighter body (e.g. for travels), keep making these contents flowing!
I agree with all what you say, a truly fine lens which worths every cent. I also have the 70/200 G2 (fantastic lens) but sometimes the lighter and smaller body is preferable. Only downside is the rather slow AF.
I have several copies of this lens. I like it for headshots and shots of animals at play outdoors. There are some lenses that make a photo stand out. This is one of those lenses.
@@WimBals I’ve owned both the ais and current version of the lens. Both were amazingly sharp but the build quality of the older lens was incredible. Built to last a lifetime and to be passed down through the generations! The only one I wouldn’t buy would be the first AF lens. Nikon was making cheap plastic body lenses! The optics were fine but definitely not the build quality! The old F-mount Nikons are screaming deals right now. Makes me happy as I can’t afford to transition to mirrorless!
An equally fast but more flexible alternative I use for zoo animals is the 80-200 F2.8. Ok, I may need a massage after carrying it around all day, but oh the results!!
180mm primes is definitely something I need to look into thanks to your great review. But I like shooting sports and would need VR and fast Autofocus for that which would mean way more $ unfortunately.
A 70-200 mm f/2.8 is more effective in your case. Of course at the expense of price and weight. In addition to my 70-200 f/2.8 G2 Tamron, this 180 mm Nikon nevertheless deserves a place in my collection.
Love your paintings. Also love the 180mm f2.8 and have shot it for the last 4 years (nearly as long as I've been a photographer). You stole my thunder (and my comment) because this prime/focal length was a favorite of mine for outdoor portraits - until I picked up a used copy of the 200mm f2. Yes, the 200mm is poorly balanced, has a poorly located manual focus ring, and a foot plate that is practically useless. And, the 200mm f2 weighs too much and garners attention (not always a good thing). With all that, it really has replaced my 180mm f2.8 for the clarity, color, dimensionality, less flare, less color fringing and smoother transitions - and the ability to capture more light. If I were shooting street - or at a ball game and didn't want to be hassled by the security, the 180mm f2.8 would be the better choice. Otherwise, the 200mm f2 has convinced me, my subjects, and my friends that are amateur photographers, that it's in a league all its own. I agree with your assessment of the 180mm f2.8 and I'm glad you are enjoying it's use. I still take it out and shoot with it often - sometimes just to compare images with the 200mm f2 (which is not fair, but I do it anyway).
I would love to try the 200mm F/2. I am convinced that this lens is better than the 180mm, but indeed the weight and size of the lens is enormous. Enjoy the 200mm F/2!
@@WimBals Without getting too deep into the weeds, it's simply for me, an amateur photographer, an esthetic thing. It seems, from my brief experience, that a lot of commercial work is more about how much you can get in focus, rather than shooting wide open at your subjects face. I get that and completely understand that many would look at the price and weight and "one trick pony" look of the lens and simply avoid it. For me, and my subjects and amateur photography friends, the difference becomes easily identifiable. Foreground and background transitions are seamless, with beautiful subject isolation. Color rendition appears more accurate and cleaner? that the 180mm f2.8. Just my opinion, but none of my photography friends ever inquired about that lens. When they see the 200mm shots though, the first words out of their mouths are "Shot with the 200?". Again, thanks for the 180mm review. If I get the chance, I do a bunch more comparisons and come back and tell you my thoughts. Again, many good wishes.
I owned and loved this lens for many years but, alas, with its screwdriver type focusing mechanism it will not AF with modern mirrorless Nikon cameras, even with an F-to-Z mount adapter. It would be wonderful if Nikon would make us 180mm for the mirrorless age.
Indeed, Z-mount does not offer autofocus. I don't expect an AF-D to Z mount either. Perhaps a third party will jump on the boat and make an adapter. I think they would sell quickly.
Thank you for your response, although I did enlist the help of Google translate. The lens did indeed originally come in a fake leather case. And indeed, the lens is very handy compared to a 70-200 mm F:2.8 lens. I bought this lens second hand and the purple coating already shows quite a few signs of wear.
I want to ask, with the older version of this lens, the 180mm AF-N, is there much of a difference in image quality? I found an AF-n lens so I was quite confused when it wasn't AF-D, the lens is beautiful at collector level (though not enough box and manual). Tks!!!
No, the optics is the same, the "D" stands for an electronic communication to the body for the Distance to the focused object at usefull mostly for flash exposition
