I had this lens in use for quite a while, but when switching to mirrorless I had to say goodbye, simply because I was not usable on the Z8. I wouldn’t have bothered about the AF not working, because macro for me menas MF only anyway. But the lens wasn’t even recognized by the camera. Tried it with two different Z8 and a Z9, different FTZ’s, cleaning contacts, … but nothing helped, so I changed to the Z 105 Micro … but I still miss the additional 100mm.
Riccardo
March 23, 2025 5:44 am
I own the AF ED 200/4 Micro since the film era. I’ve used it extensively along with many MF & AF Micro-Nikkors (55/2.8 AIS, AF 60/2.8D, AIS 105/4, AIS 105/2.8, AF 105/2.8D, AF-S ED 105/2.8 G VR, AF ED 70-180/4.5-5.6D, AI 200/4 IF) and third-party macro lenses (AF Tamron 90/2.8 SP, AF Sigma 105/2.8, AF Sigma 180/3.5, Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar). A couple of comments to this reviews are mandatory. First, I agree with the reviewer: the out-of-focus background rendition is smooth when taking close-ups with uniform lighting. However, in the presence of background reflections/highlights the bokeh is harsh, and not as good as, e.g., AF-S ED 105’s. When photographing distant subjects, foreground oof rendition is a little bit harsh too. Then, in the review it’s not stated at which focus distances the MTF plots were acquired. I think that a meaningful comparison of macro lenses should be performed at two magnifications (at least), e.g., infinity and 1:4. Additional tests at 1:1 (or 1:2) would give the most comprehensive set of information. I know that all modern macro lenses have floating elements, but this does not guarantee that performance at long distance and 1:1 are the same. Some lenses may improve at long distances, other lenses may be better at short distances. For example, Zeiss MTF plots show that the 100/2 Makro-Planar is sharper at infinity than in close-ups (it’s always better than any Nikon lens though). Finally, let me remember that focus stacking can be done even with MF macro lenses. When I use my 200 macro with D780, I move the focus point (in live-view), take picture with AF and then get a series of images that I combine with Zerene. All the best, Riccardo
Christo
March 21, 2025 9:32 am
Surprising to see a current review for this vintage lens. I still have mine, but admittingly don’t use it often anymore. Mine definitely AF on my D850. Though I tend to use my 70-180mm macro a bit more often, simply because it i so versatile. I don’t know of any other zoom macro lens. Plus it is good for IR as well. But neither is good for focus-stacking. Which is why I bought a 105mm AF-S VR. Needed yet another Micro Nikkor for film/slide copying, and yet another for Bellows. I am a DSLR (+Film) user, not a Z-Mount owner.
JoeS
March 20, 2025 4:04 pm
I own this wonderful lens and currently use it on my Nikon Z9 with the FTZii adapter. Lack of AF has not been much of an issue with me when used on my Z9 as I much prefer focusing the lens manually. I use the lens on a tripod 95% of the time or on a monopod about the remaining 5%. When using a monopod, I obtain focus by leaning in and back after I have pre-focused the lens.
On my F mount Nikon cameras, film and digital, I sometimes used the lens in AF, but AF on this D lens is not the best by current standards. For subjects like moving butterflies, I much prefer using a Nikon 300mm f4 pf lens with a third party AF extension tube. AF is much faster. Or I use a Nikon 105mm f2.8 G macro lens with better AF than the 200mm f4 D.
This lens has a well built tripod collar mount, the best I have ever used on any Nikon lens with a tripod collar mount. That feature coupled with the large and super accurate manual focus portion of the lens, makes it my first choice when I have mostly stationary subjects to photograph.
Regarding diffraction, I have seen it at around f11-16. However, At smaller f stops like f32, I do net seem to see it that much.
I was not aware of the AF adapter mentioned in the article. Thanks for this info.
When i ask my friends for what Nikon lens they wish they still had, this lens is usually the first one mentioned.
Jeff
March 17, 2025 6:06 pm
I loved the 200mm F4 EDIF macro but unfortunately it did not AF on the D850. I need AF for 1 reason and 1 reason only To do focus shift for focus bracketing. Hence I have used the 180mm F2.8 APO macro for many years. I found it to have slightly better image quality and allows me to do focus shifting on my D850. The only downside is it is significantly larger and heavier than the 200mm nikkor. But for fast, efficient, in the field creation of image for focus stacking it is the 180mm sigma is the best I have found.
Lawrence L Huber
March 17, 2025 4:52 pm
Of course you can get the EF 200mm which will work 100% with the Canon R cameras. This includes AF and with the control ring adapter RF lens features are available. Most excellent.
Louis A Sousa
March 14, 2025 8:04 pm
Hi, I would likely not use AF for macro purposes. Has an anyone used the AIS version of this lens? It is much cheaper and likely of high quality with less risk of needing repair.
The original 200mm nikkor macro (AiS) is a very different optical design. It has significant chromatic aberration that was easily visible on film.
Lukasz
March 13, 2025 3:05 am
There is one more gem from these times, its smaller, cheaper, also stellar quality, has longer 1.5m focusing distance but sharp 2.8 aperture. It’s Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED, would love to see it here too :)
Chris
March 12, 2025 3:09 pm
Looking at the MTF charts, i saw that at f11 and beyond, it is in the same class as the Z MC 105mm f/2.8 S, and far far better than the 105mm f/2.8 G . I dont think that anybody makes macro with wider aperture than f11. I am making a career in jewelry photography with this lens, and i havent yet found anything better.
Yes, for high magnification photography, there is nothing to complain about here. I don’t use anything wider than f/8 unless I’m at much tamer magnifications in the 1:4 range.
Yes, but given that, I’d love to see a comparison with the Nikkor 70-180mm macro-zoom lens. When I was trying to decide between the 200mm f/4 AF-D macro and that lens, I couldn’t find any measured tests of which is sharper. But I chose the zoom as that’s something unique in macro lenses and I’d heard some folks preferred it to the 200mm. I do also have the lens (Nikon 6T, maybe?) that makes the zoom go to 1:1 as well.
I’d love for you guys to test the Micro-Zoom lens, and would be happy to lend you my copy for a review, including the 6T!
I’ve actually tested it already, but I greatly appreciate the offer! The results are on our Member Page, and there will be a full review later this year. It’s a truly unique lens and nothing yet matches it in today’s world. Optically, it’s no longer state of the art, but is pretty much as good as anything else at f/16 and f/11. At wider apertures, the 200mm f/4 definitely holds up better on today’s 45MP sensors.
bjorn
March 12, 2025 1:47 pm
Hi Spencer great review, In the non-digital past (1999) I looked for this lens but I decided to go for the Sigma EX (IF) HSM 180 mm f3.5 APO, great lens for insects (Velvia Kodachrome user in those days). At 1:1 ~277mm distance , I remember that you only lost 2/3 th of a stop. It was about 950 gram. It held up very well on a Nikon D 800. There seemed to be some sample variation in the NON-Art EX-series but I had a great copy ;-) I liked the lens a lot, but gave it to a young biologist in 2019. I kind of still regret it, but it’s in good hands.
This lens doesn’t autofocus with FTZ adapter on a Z7/Z6 . The same applies for the newer much heavier version Sigma EX APO 180 mm f2.8 (2012) so no AF with the Z-series as well.
A lot of macro photography is done with manual focus anyway. Photographers these days have a lot of inexpensive macro lens options if autofocus isn’t a requirement! The Sigma 180mm f/3.5 among them.
Fully agree, I never use AF on macro and landscape photos anyway ;-) currently (still) use my humble 40 year old Tokina 90 mm f2.5. Also on a tilt-adapter.
I had this lens in use for quite a while, but when switching to mirrorless I had to say goodbye, simply because I was not usable on the Z8. I wouldn’t have bothered about the AF not working, because macro for me menas MF only anyway. But the lens wasn’t even recognized by the camera. Tried it with two different Z8 and a Z9, different FTZ’s, cleaning contacts, … but nothing helped, so I changed to the Z 105 Micro … but I still miss the additional 100mm.
I own the AF ED 200/4 Micro since the film era. I’ve used it extensively along with many MF & AF Micro-Nikkors (55/2.8 AIS, AF 60/2.8D, AIS 105/4, AIS 105/2.8, AF 105/2.8D, AF-S ED 105/2.8 G VR, AF ED 70-180/4.5-5.6D, AI 200/4 IF) and third-party macro lenses (AF Tamron 90/2.8 SP, AF Sigma 105/2.8, AF Sigma 180/3.5, Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar). A couple of comments to this reviews are mandatory.
First, I agree with the reviewer: the out-of-focus background rendition is smooth when taking close-ups with uniform lighting. However, in the presence of background reflections/highlights the bokeh is harsh, and not as good as, e.g., AF-S ED 105’s. When photographing distant subjects, foreground oof rendition is a little bit harsh too.
Then, in the review it’s not stated at which focus distances the MTF plots were acquired. I think that a meaningful comparison of macro lenses should be performed at two magnifications (at least), e.g., infinity and 1:4. Additional tests at 1:1 (or 1:2) would give the most comprehensive set of information. I know that all modern macro lenses have floating elements, but this does not guarantee that performance at long distance and 1:1 are the same. Some lenses may improve at long distances, other lenses may be better at short distances. For example, Zeiss MTF plots show that the 100/2 Makro-Planar is sharper at infinity than in close-ups (it’s always better than any Nikon lens though).
Finally, let me remember that focus stacking can be done even with MF macro lenses. When I use my 200 macro with D780, I move the focus point (in live-view), take picture with AF and then get a series of images that I combine with Zerene.
All the best,
Riccardo
Surprising to see a current review for this vintage lens. I still have mine, but admittingly don’t use it often anymore. Mine definitely AF on my D850. Though I tend to use my 70-180mm macro a bit more often, simply because it i so versatile. I don’t know of any other zoom macro lens. Plus it is good for IR as well. But neither is good for focus-stacking. Which is why I bought a 105mm AF-S VR. Needed yet another Micro Nikkor for film/slide copying, and yet another for Bellows. I am a DSLR (+Film) user, not a Z-Mount owner.
I own this wonderful lens and currently use it on my Nikon Z9 with the FTZii adapter. Lack of AF has not been much of an issue with me when used on my Z9 as I much prefer focusing the lens manually. I use the lens on a tripod 95% of the time or on a monopod about the remaining 5%. When using a monopod, I obtain focus by leaning in and back after I have pre-focused the lens.
On my F mount Nikon cameras, film and digital, I sometimes used the lens in AF, but AF on this D lens is not the best by current standards. For subjects like moving butterflies, I much prefer using a Nikon 300mm f4 pf lens with a third party AF extension tube. AF is much faster. Or I use a Nikon 105mm f2.8 G macro lens with better AF than the 200mm f4 D.
This lens has a well built tripod collar mount, the best I have ever used on any Nikon lens with a tripod collar mount. That feature coupled with the large and super accurate manual focus portion of the lens, makes it my first choice when I have mostly stationary subjects to photograph.
Regarding diffraction, I have seen it at around f11-16. However, At smaller f stops like f32, I do net seem to see it that much.
I was not aware of the AF adapter mentioned in the article. Thanks for this info.
When i ask my friends for what Nikon lens they wish they still had, this lens is usually the first one mentioned.
I loved the 200mm F4 EDIF macro but unfortunately it did not AF on the D850. I need AF for 1 reason and 1 reason only To do focus shift for focus bracketing. Hence I have used the 180mm F2.8 APO macro for many years. I found it to have slightly better image quality and allows me to do focus shifting on my D850. The only downside is it is significantly larger and heavier than the 200mm nikkor. But for fast, efficient, in the field creation of image for focus stacking it is the 180mm sigma is the best I have found.
Of course you can get the EF 200mm which will work 100% with the Canon R cameras. This includes AF and with the control ring adapter RF lens features are available.
Most excellent.
Hi, I would likely not use AF for macro purposes. Has an anyone used the AIS version of this lens? It is much cheaper and likely of high quality with less risk of needing repair.
• IF AI-s: 1982, max mag 0.5×, 9 elements in 6 groups.
• IF-ED AF D: 1993, max mag 1.0×, 13 elements in 8 groups, including 2 ED elements.
The latter has noticeably better performance.
The original 200mm nikkor macro (AiS) is a very different optical design. It has significant chromatic aberration that was easily visible on film.
There is one more gem from these times, its smaller, cheaper, also stellar quality, has longer 1.5m focusing distance but sharp 2.8 aperture. It’s Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D IF-ED, would love to see it here too :)
Looking at the MTF charts, i saw that at f11 and beyond, it is in the same class as the Z MC 105mm f/2.8 S, and far far better than the 105mm f/2.8 G . I dont think that anybody makes macro with wider aperture than f11. I am making a career in jewelry photography with this lens, and i havent yet found anything better.
Yes, for high magnification photography, there is nothing to complain about here. I don’t use anything wider than f/8 unless I’m at much tamer magnifications in the 1:4 range.
Yes, but given that, I’d love to see a comparison with the Nikkor 70-180mm macro-zoom lens. When I was trying to decide between the 200mm f/4 AF-D macro and that lens, I couldn’t find any measured tests of which is sharper. But I chose the zoom as that’s something unique in macro lenses and I’d heard some folks preferred it to the 200mm. I do also have the lens (Nikon 6T, maybe?) that makes the zoom go to 1:1 as well.
I’d love for you guys to test the Micro-Zoom lens, and would be happy to lend you my copy for a review, including the 6T!
I’ve actually tested it already, but I greatly appreciate the offer! The results are on our Member Page, and there will be a full review later this year. It’s a truly unique lens and nothing yet matches it in today’s world. Optically, it’s no longer state of the art, but is pretty much as good as anything else at f/16 and f/11. At wider apertures, the 200mm f/4 definitely holds up better on today’s 45MP sensors.
Hi Spencer great review, In the non-digital past (1999) I looked for this lens but I decided to go for the Sigma EX (IF) HSM 180 mm f3.5 APO, great lens for insects (Velvia Kodachrome user in those days). At 1:1 ~277mm distance , I remember that you only lost 2/3 th of a stop. It was about 950 gram. It held up very well on a Nikon D 800. There seemed to be some sample variation in the NON-Art EX-series but I had a great copy ;-) I liked the lens a lot, but gave it to a young biologist in 2019. I kind of still regret it, but it’s in good hands.
This lens doesn’t autofocus with FTZ adapter on a Z7/Z6 . The same applies for the newer much heavier version Sigma EX APO 180 mm f2.8 (2012) so no AF with the Z-series as well.
A lot of macro photography is done with manual focus anyway. Photographers these days have a lot of inexpensive macro lens options if autofocus isn’t a requirement! The Sigma 180mm f/3.5 among them.
Fully agree, I never use AF on macro and landscape photos anyway ;-) currently (still) use my humble 40 year old Tokina 90 mm f2.5. Also on a tilt-adapter.
The Sigma 180 2.8 autofocuses fine on Z cameras with the FTZ adapter.