Just finished a photo shoot with it. This review is pretty right on. It is not a quiet lens, meaning you can clearly hear the focus motor working the inner gears of the lens which is definitely makes it feel serious. You have to move your body a lot to get into the perfect situation. But once you are and it locks into / onto the target it takes your breath away... or use manual mode too if you want. When the 180mm 2,8 locks in the target it feels amazing and the images then later look amazing when you upload them. As an oil painter, it reminds me of a great sable brush.
I completely understand where you're coming from with the number of lens elements changing the character of the image. I have the manual focus version (gold ring, one piece of ED glass) and the images it helps me make are so unique. This lens only has five elements! I remember reading a piece where the author related the number of lens elements to light falling to the ground under a tree. The more branches it hits the less "pure" the result. It may be a bit metaphorical but he has a point.
Like the tree idea! :-) Every element (no matter how carefully made) will always introduce some distortion to the image making it very hard for a twenty element lens to compete with a five element design... Either way the 180/2.8 will always be one of the great Nikon designs of all time... :-)
Thanks for taking some time to review this old, but still beautiful lens. I'm a relatively new photographer that shoots mainly sports, action (dance) and wildlife. I first purchased the 70-200mm f2.8 E FL ED lens for it's flexibility. I came across a used inexpensive copy of the 180mm f2.8 AF-D and purchased it for as my first prime for a DSLR after a used 50mm. Two years ago, i moved to the Z9 (a camera I had been waiting on for 4 years), and then found a used copy of the 200mm f2 VR. The reason I'm leaving a comment is the following: Yes, the 200mm f2 is heavy - and compared to the other options, expensive - and poorly balanced with a manual focus ring that seems to be in the way and a foot that is pretty useless. It also has lots of elements in several groups. That said, the images out of it are far sharper, crisper, and the color punchier than the 180mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom (to my eye). I do not see the same degree of flare or color fringing out of the 200mm compared to the 180. The transition out-of-focus zones also appear far smoother as well. I've shot all three lenses side by side and for optical quality, the images of the 200mm stand out. They also, in the right circumstances, have depth and dimensionality. My Nikon and Canon friends who often see my images, have priced a 200mm for themselves because they can see the difference. Since the purchase of the 200mm, I've forced myself to bring it everywhere and shoot almost everything with it including wildlife. Friends, who don't like their own portraits taken, have requested I supply their portraits taken with the 200mm f2 (outdoors) for their corporate websites. Nikon's Z9 makes focusing with shallow DOF much easier. I realize the 200mm (just like the 180mm) are a bit niche in their scope and use. I believe people say that about the 135mm f2 DC (and probably the 135mm Z S Plena). That said, while it's a PITA to carry around, the hockey players, dancers, and others I capture in low light, are always visibly taken a back with the 200mm images. While the performance you can with both the zoom and 180 can get close, something about the 200mm images put them in a different league. - at least for this amateur at this point in my photography journey.
Great (spoken) review JK, thank you. But one can't possibly convey the image quality of this and other lenses when uploading at 360p. There was little excuse for that in 2008, much less 2018. It defeats the purpose of featuring images intended to be representative of a given lens' capabilities, even taking into account your very good and comprehensive narration.
I really enjoyed your review. To me, this is an unsung lens in Nikon's arsenal. I love the results that I get from mine. It's incredible for black and white portraits. If you own it, you owe it to yourself to try some b/w shots.
Excellent watch, I just bought this lens yesterday on Ebay for portraits, I love my 24-70 ed VR but I needed a portrait lens that could crush the background
I can attest that this lens is stunning! I've often said it is my favorite lens in my collection. I often reach for it for many different purposes. Do yourself a favor and grab one if you do portraits, especially if you're getting paid to shoot.
6 лет назад
Hey, where you been all this years? Missed your detailed lens reviews 👍
I had a 180 AFD. It was nice outdoors but who shoots it wide open on a sunny day? Mine started looking good from F4. A little front heavy , it can wobble a bit if you are not careful. 200 F4 is a great compromise, cheaper, more compact and a similar focal length to 180mm. I was not excited about its AF abilities. Try it and see which lens you prefer to use and carry around outdoors.
The 180 is a gorgeous lens with wonderful rendering, colour and a natural top quality bokeh. The AIS ED version has a bit less CA, is slightly softer wide open but the bokeh is at least as lovely..
Agree 100%! I have this 180mm f/2.8 AF D Classic! And will NEVER part with it. It grabbed my attention when I viewed the very first photo I took with it! Note: I have the new Nikon ZF and with this lenses combo it’s pure magic when manually focusing! And the lens hood it’s my favourite hood ever made… it’s there when you need and you barely notice when you either using it or not using it… just the sliding back and forth it’s just the best hood design ever made by anyone!
I find manual focusing rather unpleasant, I don't know if my camera has a problem, but it seems that some "points" are harder than others when focusing manually... Perhaps because of the movement caused by the internal motor over time...
I agree! Love the unique quality of this lens but so often find the focal length just a bit too long - which can't be fixed afterwards! I sometimes think I'd prefer it as a 135mm.
This lens was a wonder, the problem is not only the old style optics and performance (not a problem for portraits and the lack of resolution could be a plus ) but it’s too expensive right now. It use to be a bargain, but today the sigma 135mm f1.8 looks like a better investment
Great review JK, thank you! Have you any experience with the older 180mm f/2.8 *ED AIS? Ken Rockwell describes it as a "masterpiece". We clearly get no idea as to quality since your upload here is a mere 360p, but DXOMark marks the lens you review here down severely on sharpness - a paltry 14 "pmpx" - even on a D810. I rarely take DXO at their word, but that seems a shockingly significant finding.
I would avoid pre-AI versions simply because they may be pesky to use on modern DSLRs. In terms of optical quality, all the 180/2.8s with ED glass are masterpieces and therefore superb value for money given the second-hand prices of some of them. Have now fixed software probs so can now upload in 1080p but RU-vid don't allow you to upload a better version of an existing video... :-( Sharpness, resolution, colour, bokeh - all are of a standard which Nikon have never exceeded since... :-)
@@jklenses8611 Thanks JK. I didn't mention pre-AI lenses ;) Wouldn't touch them myself. As to upload quality, I get why RU-vid can't accept duplicates because you would be uploading a new video at a different resolution, thereby supplanting the old one: all the views, comments etc.
Ken Rockwell says the 180mm 2.8D is optically superior to the 180mm 2.8 ED AI-S, he’s almost always right, though in my tests I have trouble seeing if the Canon 70-200mm 2.8L IS II on a 6D is sharper at around 180mm and 2.8 vs the 180mm 2.8 ED AI-S on a Df. The 70-200mm 2.8L IS II has a 33 DXO score on a 5DSR vs 28 the 180mm 2.8D gets on a D800E. Will try to test them on a 5DS and D800, respectively. Maybe results would be different?
@@TheGreatLoco "Ken Rockwell says the 180mm 2.8D is optically superior to the 180mm 2.8 ED AI-S". Where did you see this? On his Website review of the 180 2.8D, he says: "The reason to get one of these 180mm lenses is because not only are its optics superior to any of Nikon's f/2.8 tele ZOOMs, these fixed lenses are smaller and much lighter than any of the zooms." He adds: "The legendary NIKKOR✱ED 180mm f/2.8 AI-s, is a superb manual focus lens often considered among Nikon's sharpest lenses of all time. It's ultra-sharp and works brilliantly on today's newest state-of-the-art 50 megapixel cameras."
The whole low element count / micro-contrast thing is a funny one, marketing copy found in old photography magazines. High-end lenses produced today (with their 16 or so elements) have almost as much micro contrast (its honestly hardly noticeable, unlike bubble/onion bokeh and CA which really is). The problem is that people compare these older high-end lenses with new low-end lenses, its really not a fair comparison. (love your vids btw).
Excellent point - couldn’t agree more! The ‘fair comparison’ which I think this channel’s reviews try to get people to make is in terms of picture quality per pound/dollar spent. On this basis many older high-end lenses are the best value for money and some modern high-end lenses are highly over-priced, justifying their price tags on the basis of exciting features rather than optical quality…(at least that’s what I think!)…😊
I have the AF (non-D) version on my Z5 and/or D7100, and while it's fairly sharp even from 5.6, the CA can be horrendous wide open and has to be corrected in postproc. I know that this has always been a problem with "simple" fast lenses, but at longer focal lengths it really hits you how much optical design has actually improved, not stepped back. The only reason I use it instead of the otherwise far superior 70-300 AF-P VR is to get more background separation / bokeh... all in all , you need to have one of these, but it's not a daily driver.
CA is an issue if you decide to shoot in an environment where CA becomes an issue. As the photographer, it is our responsibility to know the limitations of our tools.
@@mjak993 sorry if you took offense to my statement. I was only trying to point out a fact. Nothing more and nothing less. Not trying to be condescending at all.
The earliest versions of this lens, pre-AIS, were rumored to have ED glass but without the gold ring. The image quality of all the multi coated lens was superb. The first plastic AF lenses were the same optical formula as the later metal bodied lenses. The build quality however was hideous and not many were produced. Nikons first AF lenses were really pretty ugly, especially considering the very high quality of their manual focus lenses. A case in point is the first AF 55mm micro lens. Great image quality with really bad packaging.
Hey JK - excellent Video. I've been thinking about one of these 180s for a while but so far have not justified it as I do mainly indoor portraits with 85 & 70mm & studio strobes. I also do candid environment portraits with 50 & 35mm (just ordered a 24-85VR btw) so the 180 is not really the thing for my current style. However - this lens would be a great excuse to venture outdoors for portraits sometimes LOL. I've made the firm discision to ignore the mirrorless hype and just take the opportunity to hoover up the fantastic used Nikon bargains that 'Mirrorless Mania' is currently creating. My brother & I have just bought a pair of D3x bodies for incredibly low prices (there are VERY few online reviews and they're mainly terrible.) It was totally off my radar but when I saw one in my local LCE, I did some research. My take was - "This was Joe McNally's high resolution portrait camera for a couple of years and Nikon spared no expense in creating it - can it be so utterly Bad?. I decided that at these prices, I could afford to try one for myself and I'm so glad I did! When Bruv and I saw the images from the first one, we rushed straight out to buy a second body. The D3x is a fantastic portrait cameras in my book (as I shoot low(ish) ISO! My view is that the Nikon F-mount is a fabulous ecosystem and I've no intention of leaving it just when the prices of seriously classy used kit are falling through the floor. (Timmee on Purpleport)
I agree! I’ve used a D3S since it was released and have been eyeing up some of the bargains now available on this simply outstanding camera (especially for sports, action and high ISO). I agree completely about the mirrorless thing. Whenever I take a picture that’s not great is it because I needed a wider lens mount than the F or because of the pesky mirror in my camera? Of course not!! I’d encourage people to look very carefully at the advertising around the new mirrorless bodies as I suspect it’s only going to be a very small proportion of photographers who actually need this innovation to get the images they want. To pick up on your points - if you can’t get the pics you want with a D3X and a 180mm f2.8 (used outdoors 😊) then I’d be very surprised if you’ll get them by changing to a mirrorless body!!
@@jklenses8611 I am very interested in the D3S too. I briefly tried a plain vanilla D3 to see if it offered any focus or image quality advantage over my D700. I decided there were none that I could see. The D3S may be a different kettle of fish, but I haven't had the chance to try one yet. With the D3X, my brother and I were so impressed with the operation, focus sure-footedness, & image output that we felt quite safe to sell on the faithful old D700 & D7100. D3X's are that good that they are just not required anymore. We have picked up a really cheap but nice D300 for a experimenting and testing with so that we don't load up the D3X's with 1000's of scrap frames. If you did a video on the D3S, I'd be keen to watch.
I think you’d find the pro-focused build quality, ergonomics and controls of the D3S very similar indeed to the D3X, as they are essentially very similar cameras (no need for a video - phew!). The difference is that in the D3X the FX format sensor area is divided up into 24 million tiny squares, giving very high resolution but limiting the low-light and high-ISO performance. It also results in large files which limits frame rate. In the D3S the sensor area is only chopped up into a lower resolution of 12 million squares which allows for (much) better high-ISO performance and faster frame rates. The two cameras are obviously designed for different uses. As someone who photographs fast-moving things, often in poor lighting, I’m unsurprisingly a huge fan of the D3S where I can get excellent images at many thousands or tens of thousands of ISOs and capture them at up to 9fps. At 12Mp I can still make prints up to a metre by a metre and a half so have never felt the need to double the Mp count for the insane resolution of the D3X. If I was shooting advertising hoardings, I’d obviously make this choice differently… (PS: Much of the image-making gubbins in the D3 is very similar to that of the D700, which may explain your experience of the D3’s images.)
@@jklenses8611 Yes, I'd love to try a D3s at some point and have a good look at its output alongside my D700, D7100, and D3x files. Incidentally I've now had a look at the output of the newly arrived 24-85VR and I'm really impressed. The VR seems to work well with ambient. I shot with VR off, and using Elinchrom & softbox to look at its sharpness. My take is that once you get about 1 stop smaller than maximum aperture at 35, 50, 70, 85mm the images are pretty close to those from the 35 f2.0D, 50 f1.8G, Sigma 70 f2.8 Macro, and 85 f1.8G (at those same appertures.) My impression was 28mm & 24mm are not quite so good (but I don't have those primes for comparison, & my existing primes are not the most up-market greatest versions.) Overall I'm surprised at how good it is. Perhaps it may take a D810 or D850 to show up the differences more? My impression is the 24-85VR is a poor man's 24-70 f2.8 for medium apertures at least. I know you are a 24-120 fan, but I'd like to see you do a video review of the 24-85VR for the benefit of us poor folks. Regards, Tim.
I do keep hearing great things about the 24-85 VR but in terms of a poor man's 24-70 f2.8 my outright winner is the 28-105 f3.5-4.5. I use it all the time now and if the pictures are less good than those taken with the 24-70 then I'm struggling to see where exactly. Also, the second-hand price of this lens is simply bonkers, giving it amazing value for money in my book... :-)
This version is a actually all metal underneath the plastic, this was a coating designed for heat dispersion, only negative is the thin focus ring really
I have one and love it, but as it came used 5 years ago, right now it has a big problem: a gray layer on the internal lens! Always used it with care... Don’t know what happened, I read that many old lens hadnthis kind of problems like the 35-70 f2.8 or the 20mm 2.8... So bad to discover it
AF-D does not exist. AF and D designations are two different things. This lens' predecessor was an AF lens, but lacked the D designation, there are AF lenses with the G designation and AF-S lenses, as well as AF-I lenses with the D designation.
Thanks for the review, much appreciated. I know I’m late to the discussion, but I still hope you can help me out. I’m torn between this lens and the ai-s ed version of this lens mainly using it on the z50, so AF doesn’t work anyway. Any preferences? Thanks :))
I'd look around the ones available and get the best quality one you can find for your money. Buying manual, as long as it's a post-ED one then there are some excellent AI-S examples available. Buying the newest one you can might also be a plan although these lenses do seem to be designed to last a lifetime! :-)
JKLenses Thanks for your reply greatly appreciated. I only ever had probs with pre AF lenses and sticky focus rings. I can get the AF or the ai-s ED in similar excellent condition for approx the same price. I was wondering if there are any differences in optical performance. I’ve had a push/pull 2.8 80-200 before, but it ‘broke’ my arm after a while, optically i was more than pleased with it :))
@@thorstenbabetzki3638 I don't think so - it was one of those lenses which didn't change its optical design very much as AF was introduced. I've loved the pics from my AF version but have also seen equally stunning pics from AI-S versions. It's just great all day long... :-)
JKLenses Thank you very much. I’ve just bought the ai-s ED for a very good price. I was a bit concerned that there is no lens element in front of the aperture and without close inspection, I didn’t want to take the extra risk. Thanks again for your help. Stay safe :))
At last! Have fixed problems/stupidity and can now produce an HD version of the video. Unfortunately, RU-vid won't allow me to 'replace' this video with its new HD version - not sure of best way forward..!? Can anyone help? :-)
@@jklenses8611 Yes JK. Remove this one and re-upload it. Comments will be lost though, but it was a pretty bad call to upload a lens review at 360 in the first place, as you have acknowledged.
Differences in pictures caused by D or non-D lenses are marginal and in non-flash pictures almost non-existent. As long as it's a post-ED lens then you should be able to enjoy this lens's awesome quality to the full... :-)
I don’t know anything about the Fuji mount issue but given the age of the lens, I would be assuming not, unless I could find definite confirmation otherwise… It’s internally focusing and very strongly built so I think it would probably stand up to mildly unpleasant weather but it’s certainly not waterproof. There is no rubber ‘weather-sealing’ gasket on the lens mount. I’d happily use it in mild drizzle but wouldn’t stay out all day in the rain with it! 😊
JKLenses Thank you. Its an old lens but they still make it brand new, just because people love it so much. No weather sealing ok. Thanks appreciate the answer.
The D letter means that the lens sends distance information to the camera to improve autofocus accuracy, especially when using flash. It's no big deal _ I've got several early AF lenses which don't have the D technology and I've never had any AF problems with them.ED refers to the use of lens elements made from Nikon's special Extra-Low Dispersion glass which help to reduce colour distortions.The bottom line with the 180mm f2.8 is that the lack of D is really of no consequence but I wouldn't buy a non-ED version (they would also be very old btw). Hope this helps. :-)
You can never buy this pro grade lens under 300 usd . This lens different than others . 180 mm f2.8 very light and small lens if u compare with 70-200 f2.8 of 80-200 f2.8 . image quality , bokeh excellent . if you need cheap , very light , fast and excellent result sport lens this lens is perfect. I use this lens on D610 and D4s . On D4s 2x faster. Body effect everything never blame lens if you don't use sport camera body. also on d500 very fast lens too. under 300 usd u can get short or kit lenses. I use 300mm f4d and 180mm f2.8 for marathon and car racing , cycling . also with this lens 300mm f4d best buy lenses .
Hang on! Sorry! Having long watched your excellent reviews on the 14-24, 24-70, & 70-200mm Nikon Holy Trinity several of these images appear in the 70-200mm 2.8 review. While I agree the 35mm & 60mm D series lenses are a very good reason to stay away from the 24-70mm zoom lens in all its rebirths I cannot agree with the use of images taken from a totally different type of lens [zoom] to use for a prime. Two images for sure are the lonesome tree and the train. Shameful. That said I thank you for persuading me to buy the 35mm & 60mm D series. Owning the 70-200mm f4 and with the micro 105mm also in my bag I have and still am giving serious consideration to buying the lens you review.
The lonesome tree and the steamy train were definitely taken with the 180mm f2.8. As far as I recall, they appear in the Alternatives section of the 70-200 f2.8 review when discussing the output of the 180mm f2.8 as a possible alternative lens. Will go back and watch them again to be certain…
You have managed to describe such a beautiful lens into something sooooooooo boring.....the voice pattern is so linear and boring that I fall into my chair and I found my self asleep before the review has ended. Good Job. I could use you as my children's nanny. All you have to do is to talk to them before bed time and I am sorted for the night. LOL
@Peter Christensen Well good for you for finding this exiting.....Me for one ? I fell asleep in my chair. I am a photographer for 20 years with some work behind me and very interested in everything about photography but this video has indeed put me to sleep..
