|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
12
|
40182
|
June 14, 2008
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Purchase
|
|
100% of reviewers
|
$379.78
|
|
|
Construction Quality
|
Image Quality
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.92
|
9.45
|
8.75
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HighSierra
Registered: June 2008
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: June 14, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $440.00| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp straight from F2.8, very solid construction
|
|
Cons:
|
Purple fringing around extreme contrast borders at F2.8
|
|
Wow, what a lens! I really can't detect any increase in sharpness when stopping down, on a D200. Thus F/2.8 can be used with impunity and no remorse. Beyond sharpness though, this lens has great bokeh, and a very nice way of rendering tone. Though I'd probably be better off with a more versatile 50-150 or 70-200 for event work, something about the images this lens produces just keeps me coming back for more.
The only image quality issue I have found is that areas of extreme contrast can be subject to (uncorrectable) purple fringing at F/2.8. Stopping down negates the issue.
The build is great, with nice crinkled metal, the slide-out lens hood, and damped manual focus ring. Sure it is screw-drive, and not AFS, so it could be quieter, but on a D200 is focuses quite quickly, and i've not had any issues with hunting.
If you can live with a fixed lens, the Nikkor 180 is a great choice, and quite a steal on the used market currently.
|
|
Iyhel
Registered: March 2007
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: March 13, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $360.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, sharp, rather cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
No focus range limiter combiend with slow AF
|
|
This is a must-have lens for anyone who enjoys primes.
Image sharpness is excellent at any aperture, the bokeh and color rendering delicious, it's light and easy to handle.
My only regret is that there is no focus range limiter in order to have it hunt a little less in dim light conditions. With a limiter I wouldn't complain about the slow AF.
This is - as any old Nikkor - a durable lens: mine is over 20 years old and optics are still flawless - just a few wear on the body.
If you get it second hand, I would suggest to look for an early one, without the M/A switch which seems to be a pain in the ass, and if possible the rubber ring version, not the plastic one which is not that wmooth to use.
I have tried the 70-200VR, and the convenience of a zoom was not enough to convince me to handle twice the weight of my 180 ! (optical qualities are comparable, maybe slightly slightly better for the prime)
|
|
fergusonjr
Registered: January 2007
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: January 15, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $400.00| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Great image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
No internal AF-motor
|
|
It's hard to argue against the image quality from this lens, because it's just great. I suppose my opinion could have been skewed slightly by the fact that I had just come away from playing with a Nikon 28-135 lens whose image quality was just dismal . . . and this 180mm lens seemed like heaven by comparison. But objectively speaking, this is a great lens.
I'm not a big fan of the type of construction Nikon uses for these larger lenses, frankly. The metal body is reminiscent of military surplus gear and while it feels very solid, it doesn't feel so much like you're getting what you paid for in the same way you do with so many Canon lenses. For the price, I would also expect an internal motor, and not the noisy drive-screw operation. I also found not having FTM focusing a real limitation, particularly at lower apertures (smaller DOF) where I would more often need to fine-tune the focus. Having to switch both the lens and the camera to manual focus was a really crummy limitation.
My used sample also came with an annoying problem -- the aperture ring-lock too easily unlocked itself, and the aperture-ring would turn by itself and cause the camera to declare an error. It took me a bit to figure out why the error kept coming up. This continued to be annoying as it seemed to disable the camera at the very moment I really wanted to snap a shot.
However, all the negatives aside, this lens produces some really great images. The background blur (bokeh) is quite nice, and the color transmission is superb. The DOF on this lens can be made exceptionally tight, and even at f/2.8 the focused target is very very sharp. If you can tolerate the drive-screw-AF limitations, need a big aperture telephoto lens, and can get a good used-price, I would recommend this lens.
|
|
thomiz
Registered: January 2007
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: January 11, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, fast (aperture), good build, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow focus, not pin sharp at 2.8
|
|
I loved this lense when I got it about 5 years ago. And I have used it a lot both on film and on the Nikon D1. But it is slow to focus even on the D1 body. And at 2.8 I do not find the result pin sharp, at f/4 it is everything you can ask for, and really outstanding bokeh. The lense shade is of questionable quality and utility in my opinion.
My current combination of 20D and 200L is to be prefered in my opinion. Much faster AF, and the same outstanding IQ.
|
|
wl2
Registered: December 2006
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: January 1, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $500.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp and light
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
The lens is extremely sharp even at F2.8. The built-in hood is very handly.
Highly recommended.
|
|
diamondpete
Registered: December 2006
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: December 17, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $380.00| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great all-around focal length
|
|
Cons:
|
litte slow in focussing
|
|
I love this lens. I use it for general purpose photography and mostly for sports. Sports use is soccer, wrestling, swimming, and baseball, mostly. It is fast enough for the indoor sports and at the same time, not too big to be lunking around for the outdoor events. All in all I have found it to be very sharp, and a good example of why it is worth paying more for Nikon glass.
|
|
kirehe
Registered: December 2006
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: December 5, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $310.00| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpest lens I've ever owned. Cheap used ones out there.
|
|
Cons:
|
Tele primes not so useful for travelphoto.
|
|
I had the older version which wasn't as high-quality as the newer one. But oh so sharp. Lovely. My primary photo style is travel stuff though, and primes just aren't worth it for that stuff.
But if you need tele and sharpness and can be ok with slow focusing (and perhaps short on $$$), this is your lens.
|
|
julioalperi
Registered: November 2006
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: November 20, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $443.00| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Resolution,distortions,vignetting,CAs,bokeh, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
No SWM
|
|
This is an excellent lens. I have not found any weakness using it,resolution is very good to excellent , very low distortion, very low vignetting and low CAs. Excellent contrast and very nice bokeh. I highly recommend this lens.
|
|
audioguru1
Registered: November 2006
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: November 20, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $350.00| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight compared to 80-200
|
|
Cons:
|
slow AF, not zoom
|
|
This is a great lens - really it is. Its actually light enough to comfortably handhold, compared to the alomost 3 pound 80-200 lens. Its pretty sharp after you stop down from f4 on. Good bokeh.
AF operation is kind of slow, but tolerable, having IF helps some.
Fit and finish is great, is solidly built. If you want to MF this lens has great feel, but you need to remember to switch the lens and camera body.
Ultimately I think the 80-200 is probably just as sharp, this lens's main advantage is weight.
|
|
jeans
Registered: November 2006
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: November 17, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, f/2.8, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
prime
|
|
Pros:
Image quality is outstanding:
Sharpness, color and contrast are great.
CA, ghosting, and flare are well controlled.
Very useful with TCs (Kenko 300 Pro x1.4 works great) - works better than with the f/2.8 zooms
Fast glass is nice for wildlife portraits
Much lighter than the zooms like Nikkor 70(80)-200/2.8
Price
Cons:
Not being a zoom lens limits its usefulness at fast-paced action environment
Summary:
Great image quality for an acceptable price in a light package
|
|
kenunger
Registered: December 2005
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: January 7, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $235.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
high sharpness, superb color rendition, light weight, excellent build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
AF mode is never completely disengaged when in M position
|
|
Images taken with this lens are rendered with high sharpness, contrast and vivid colour saturation. Wide open high quality images are produced and when this lens is stopped down from f/4.0 to f/11 it's almost impossible to get a better image quality. This is one of the greatest Nikkors of all times in optical performace
|
|
wilfried
Registered: November 2005
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: November 4, 2005
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 10
|
|
I have one of the very first copies, still with a semi-gloss finish. Now it comes with the nice and professional looking paint.
Optically it is simply flawless, one of Nikon's finest.
AF speed is okay, but not great. It even does a fine job for macro work (dragon flies) in combination with extension tubes.
This is one of the few remaining lenses with a built-in telescopic lens hood. Very nice and practical. The lens doesn't have a tripod collar, but it also doesn't need one.
One curious thing is when you look at it from the back: Deep inside, instead of the last lens element, you see the aperture blades.
I gave this lens a "Yes" recommendation, because it simply deserves it.
However, would I buy it again, now that I have the 70-200mm VR? Zooms are more practical for digital cameras (sensor dust).
|
|
|
|
|
|
