Nikkor Tales: The Nikon 200/4 K, AI, & AI-s Nikkors

Nikkor 200/4 AI-s mounted on an F3 w/ MD-4 Motor Drive

    Middle-of-the-road. Middle-child-syndrome. When it comes to lenses you would be hard-pressed to find another optical specification that seemingly fits either of those epithets more closely than a plain ol' 200mm f/4 prime. A middling focal length, a middling maximum aperture, middling size and weight, and no optical development for almost fifty years...all of these added together must up to a middling "meh" experience. Or do they? Could it be that this valedictorian of the Class of the Overlooked is actually an overachiever and more than the sum of its moderate specifications? Well, you will have to decide that for yourself :-).  

    Before we get too far, let me be the first to say that a 200/4 is not for everyone. Nor is any other focal length/aperture combination, for that matter. If you are a 24/28mm...50/58mm...100/105mm...and so on type of person, a 200/4 fits the focal length progression quite nicely. But, if you are more of the 35/85/135mm-type, it likely will not be enough of a jump from the 135 to make carrying one worthwhile. Most people also find manually focusing a lens with an f/4 maximum aperture and a split-image focusing aid to be a challenge. The solution: using the microprism collar or matte field aids in your SLR viewfinder instead. Of course, that does not work for everyone, either, due to each individual's particular eyesight situation. The trick is to figure out whether a 200/4 will match up with your personal capabilities and limitations. The nice thing is that values have bottomed out, so you can try one and then move it along for at least what you paid for it if it doesn't work out for you. Now, while we will be diving in with the 200/4 Nikkors specifically, the same principles will apply to virtually any Japanese OEM 200/4 from the mid-'70s era, when development of these lenses peaked. Hopefully, you will find this helpful in deciding whether or not to fall down the 200/4 rabbit hole, small as it may be. We are talking f/4, after all, where photons go to die ;-).    

  Origins

    The market for 200mm lenses basically coincided with the rise of the SLR as the 35mm choice for professional photojournalists and enthusiasts. While Zeiss had developed the first successful, fast 35mm-format long telephoto Olympia 180/2.8 Sonnar, back in 1935 (for the 1936 Berlin Olympics as the name implies), it was a very limited-production lens and it required a reflex adapter for practical use on the Contax rangefinder cameras then en vogue. SLRs basically incorporated that reflex box within themselves, making the use of focal lengths longer than 135mm (the upper limit of a rangefinder) a cinch. Nikon themselves had developed their own 18cm (180mm) f/2.5 lens for their S-mount (a few in M39 Leica Thread Mount also escaped into the wild :-)) rangefinders, which was released in 1953. It weighed a staggering 1.7kg/60 oz. The 18/2.5 Nikkor-H could be adapted for use on F-mount SLRs, which added even more length and weight to more than a handful of lens ;-). With the proliferation of Japanese SLRs in the late-'50s and early-'60s, 200mm (and longer) lenses came right alongside. Nikon introduced their first F-mount 20cm (200mm) f/4 Nikkor-Q Auto in 1961 and some version would be sold for the next 35 years or so, even as they expanded into 180/2.8, 200/2, and 200/3.5 F-mount optics during that same period. The 200/4 would go from being a top-of-the-line offering...to budget option...to gone...within that timeframe. And it remains a largely-ignored focal length/aperture combination today. So what happened? And why might it be worth your time to give one a first or maybe a second look?  

  The Rise of the 200mm Lens

    The development of 200mm SLR lenses progressed nicely through the 1960s, with f/3.5 being a "fast" aperture at the time, and f/2.8 confined to the drawing board :-). While many of their competitors offered two lenses in the 200mm category for part or most of the decade, Nikon split the difference by offering a single f/4 lens:

• Topcon - 200/4 & 5.6
• Canon -  200/3.5 & 4.5
• Minolta - 200/3.5 & 4.5
• Pentax - 200/3.5 & 5.6, until 1965 when they followed Nikon with a single f/4

​   The main reason for the proliferation of moderate-aperture 200s during that period came down to physics; increasing the light-gathering capability by one stop or doubling the focal length increases aberrations by the square. The means available to lens designers at the time to counteract that were limited:

• Aperture - Larger apertures = higher levels of aberration. It's as simple as that. And one stop wider of aperture (2x the amount of light admitted) increases aberrations by the square (so 4x overall). F/3.5 was simply as far as the glass technology of the day could take things, together with how much residual aberration the particular manufacturer was willing to accept to achieve it.
• Telephoto ratio - this is an expression of the actual overall length of the lens versus the distance from the film (or sensor in the case of digital) plane to the focus node of the lens at infinity. The smaller the telephoto ratio, the more powerful the magnification of the rear group of the lens has to be to achieve the desired overall focal length, which in turn increases axial (longitudinal) chromatic aberration (wait for it...) by the square. Any telephoto ratio lower than 1.0x pushes the focal node past the front lens surface, enabling a construction physically shorter than the focal length itself (a good thing). The original 200/4 Nikkor-Q had a telephoto ratio of 0.99x, meaning that the distance from the film plane to the front surface of the lens was 198mm. Topcon, on the other hand, designed their 200/5.6 with a telephoto ratio of 0.83x, or 16% less than the Nikkor-Q, resulting in a film-plane to front surface distance of 166mm...but they had to drop a full stop of aperture from f/4 to f/5.6, to accommodate the increase in aberration from the lower telephoto ratio. No free lunch :-).  

    All lens manufacturers are faced with this dilemma of balancing performance, speed, physical size, and cost within the limits of their optical technology at any given time. With their original 200/4, Nikon opted for a moderate aperture together with a physically longer lens to accommodate the fact that they had no ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass, no multicoatings, and no computer-aided lens design in 1959-61. By the early-1970s, major advancements had been made in all of those areas. Consequently, Nikon was able to introduce their first F-mount f/2.8 telephoto longer than 135mm: the 180/2.8 Nikkor-P Auto in 1970-71 (with a still-moderate telephoto ratio of 0.95x, by the way). What did that bode for our friendly 200/4? First, a bump down the Nikkor lineup ladder. The new 180/2.8 was double the price of the 200/4, pushing the latter out of its previous top-of-the-line role. Nikon also decided it was time for development of a full-scale redesign of the 200/4, whose basic formula was now a decade old, although it had been recently "remodeled" (in Nikon's own words) in 1969 for improved color balance (using newly-developed glass with a lower transmission of blue wavelengths) and resolution (achieved by improved correction of spherical aberration) which permitted a sizeable 1/3-reduction in minimum focus distance from 3m/10' to 2m/7'. Nikon also added another aperture blade (going from 6 to 7). Multicoatings would be added in 1973 (Serial # 570001 and up).

    Because of this relatively recent update to the 200/4 Nikkor-Q, Nikon could afford to take their time with its successor. And they did. Designer Teruyoshi Tsunashima would submit no fewer than four design proposals between March 1971 and February 1974 for what would become the New (aka "K") Nikkor 200/4 that was eventually released for sale a further two years later in February 1976. It would be the final 200/4 Nikkor optical design to date.

  The New 200/4 Nikkor

    With the arrival of the 180/2.8, the role of the 200/4 Nikkor was redefined, and this informed Nikon's decision-making when it came to the composition of the succeeding edition of the lens. Right from the first design proposal, Tsunashima-san knew that he would not be permitted to use the then-brand-new, extra-low dispersion (ED) glass that Nikon was implementing in its new 300/2.8 Nikkor-H super-telephoto then in final development. And this made practical sense: you do not put more expensive glass in a budget or standard lens than your premium offerings, and the 180/2.8 itself wouldn't get ED glass for another 10 years. In fact, in 1971, Nikon wasn't even yet able to produce its own ED glass; they had to purchase the FK52 (Fluour Krown) from Schott in Germany for the first production run of the 300/2.8 Nikkor-H to have the lens ready in time for the Sapporo Winter Olympics of 1972. The New 200/4 was not going to be a flagship lens, it was to be a workhorse and attainable for the average enthusiast photog. So what was Tsunashima left with? Maximize the performance of the lens with conventional glass types while reducing size and weight. Now it becomes apparent why it took him three years to come up with the final design. When you can't solve problems by just throwing money and premium materials at them, it pushes you harder and Tsunashima was up to the challenge, judging by the results.  

    Granted, it's not like he had nothing to work with at all. During the decade-plus since the original 200/4 Nikkor-Q Auto was introduced, even conventional glass types had seen significant improvements and designers now had access to more sophisticated computer-aided design and calculation of optical formulas. But there was still plenty of trial-and-error involved as evinced by the multiple design proposals Tsunashima submitted. So what was he able to accomplish in the end? First, he was able to reduce the telephoto ratio of the lens to 0.8x, while still markedly improving optical correction and performance. That is noteworthy. Remember that increasing the magnification of the rear lens group to reduce the telephoto ratio leads to an increase in axial chromatic aberration (CA) by the square of the magnification increase. The 0.19x reduction in telephoto ratio produced a big jump in axial CA that would have to be rectified by the optics of the lens. The drop in telephoto ratio enabled a nearly-25% reduction in overall length of the lens, and Nikon was also able to trim the weight by almost 15% from the previous-generation 200/4 Nikkor Q-C.

    Something interesting about the New 200/4 was the inclusion of a decidedly non-budget 9-blade aperture, rather than the usual 7 blades for Nikon's standard lenses of the time. Perhaps Tsunashima-san was granted that small gift for having to sacrifice on the glass end and his three years of hard work. Or maybe it was simply a matter of beating Canon and their then-current, 8-bladed, 200/4 S.S.C. model ;-). Even the 180/2.8 Nikkor-P and AI models used "just" a 7-blade diaphragm (although it would also be upgraded to 9 blades when the ED AI-s version appeared in 1981). 

4-elements in 4-groups optical formula of the original 200/4 Nikkor-Q Auto (1961-76)

5-elements in 5-groups optical formula of the 200/4 New Nikkor, AI, & AI-s (1976-86)

​    ​The general efficacy and acceptance of this basic 5-element formula for 200/4 lenses was borne out with its coincidental adoption by Nikon's competitor Minolta for their mid-'70s introduction of their own 200/4 optic (which replaced their previous f/3.5 & f/4.5 models in one shot). Minolta's MC-Rokkor(-X) was introduced just a couple of months prior to the New Nikkor in December 1975 and bears quite the internal resemblance:​

Minolta MC Rokkor(-X) from Dec. 1975. 5 elements in 5 groups.

 
    The Minolta lens could not quite match the New Nikkor's impressive telephoto ratio (0.85x vs. 0.80x) nor its 2m/6.5' minimum focus distance (2.5m/8.2'), and it only sported 6 aperture blades as was Minolta's standard at the time. It was 11% longer and weighed a touch less (520g/18.3oz vs. 540g/19 oz). Performance was nonetheless excellent and very similar to the Nikkor's. Not too shabby for a lens priced 40% lower. Filter size was 55mm.

    Note, too, the SMC Pentax 200/4 introduced in the Fall of 1975 that retained the basic 5e/5g layout of the 200/4 Super Takumar from 1965 but updated it with a closer focusing distance (2m vs. 2.5m) that matched the Nikkor's and improved SMC multicoatings over the first-generation S-M-C Takumar's. The SMC Pentax utilized 6 aperture blades like the Minolta and its telephoto ratio stretched even further to 0.89x. Overall length was 16% longer, but it undercut the New Nikkor by all of 5g/0.2 oz in weight. It was priced 45% below the Nikkor. Filter size was 58mm.​    

SMC Pentax 200/4 optical diagram also featuring 5e/5g. Courtesy of www.pentaxforums.com

    ​All three optical designs are viewed as the highest performing 200/4 lenses each manufacturer ever produced. Both Minolta and Pentax would introduce newer, shorter (10% for the Minolta, and 20% for the Pentax), and considerably lighter (400-410g/14.3 oz) 200/4 lenses in the coming years, but both sacrificed some of their optical performance (shorter = lower telephoto ratio = more aberrations) as 200/4s faded in popularity and were pushed even further into the budget category. Nikon would knock a couple more millimeters off of the overall length of their final AI-s version and also trim the weight to 510g/18 oz, but made no optical compromises through the end of production.

    When compared to the Nikkor-Q, the new design offers noticeably better performance wide-open and is basically at peak capability from f/5.6 to f/11. The older lens needs at least f/8 to reach its peak. The overall competence of the optical layout of the New 200/4 should not be surprising because of how closely it resembles the original 300/2.8 ED's (possibly a source of inspiration for Tsunashima) and it was further demonstrated when Nikon virtually reused it over five years later for the 180/2.8 ED AI-s with the substitution of ED glass for the front element. ED glass is harder to manufacture and work with than conventional glass, thus its higher cost. It is also more sensitive to temperature variations and is more delicate than standard glasses. 

    Nikon did manage to improve the hardness and durability of their own ED glass over time but they still ended up having to add a built-in, protective front filter to the various newer 300 - 1200mm ED AI & AI-s lenses because of their exposed front ED elements, and it is a good idea to use a high-quality, multicoated 72mm UV or Skylight filter on the 180/2.8 ED AI-s, too. There is not much point in putting a cheap filter in front of good glass that can undo much of the performance built into the lens. No such worries with the lowly 200/4 :-). A further bonus is that any version of the New 200/4 can be had for the same or less money than the older Nikkor-Q(-C) versions, likely due to the predilection among vintage camera nerds for "all-metal" lens construction. For shame the New Nikkors would dare to use a rubber focus ring ;-).

300/2.8 Nikkor-H ED (1972). ED elements shown by oblique lines. 6e/5g.

180/2.8 ED AIs (1981). ED element at the far left. 5e/5g.

    A Poor-Man's 180/2.8 ED AI-s?

   Obviously, the 200/4 cannot possibly match the overall imaging capability of its younger, faster, ED-equipped sibling. You can't beat physics :-). But, what the question really should be is this: "How much is that extra stop of aperture and bit of aberration correction worth to you, personally? Is it worth:

• At least twice the cost in today's used market for an Excellent (not "Near-mint" on the big auction site; eyeroll) condition copy of 180/2.8 ED AI-s lens from a reputable retailer? $100-150 USD vs. $300+ USD.
• Well over 50% more weight? 800g/28 oz vs. 510g/18 oz. An interesting tidbit: the Nikon F3 with its MD-4 motor drive attached can balance upright with the 200/4 AI-s focused to infinity; no chance of that with any 180/2.8 Nikkor :-).
• Considerably more bulk in the hand? There is more difference than you would think a 10mm/0.39" (K/AI 200/4) to 13.5mm/0.53" (AI-s 200/4) increase in diameter makes ;-). Handholding the 180/2.8 ED AI-s is a considerable step up from the 200/4 and it requires a heavier SLR body to counterbalance it effectively. 
• More care exercised in focusing? Due to the inclusion of ED glass, the 180/2.8 ED AI-s actually focuses past infinity when turned to its hard stop. This is to account for the expansion & contraction of the ED element with changes in temperature. Hitting actual infinity when focusing is not simply a matter of turning the focus ring to the hard stop as with most other lenses. A level of familiarity with the lens and where actual infinity sits on the focus ring scale at certain temperatures is needed for best results. Not an issue with the 200/4.

The F3 w/ MD-4, the 200/4 AI-s, and the 180/2.8 ED AI-s for size comparison. Both lenses are at minimum focus distance, or maximum extension.

    The 180/2.8 ED AI-s is rightly famed for its performance in astrophotography (one of those situations where determining infinity focus can be tricky, initially; stars are very hard to focus manually...after all it's dark out :-)), and was also a go-to for indoor sports and stage performances in its heyday. The bulk and weight are not a big deal for astro, since you would be mounting it on a tracking mount or tripod, anyways. But handholding it for the other activities could be a stretch for some. If you are more of a hiker/landscape shooter, the lighter weight and compactness of the 200/4 are major drawing cards. Now, you will always be able to find a hardcore 180/2.8 ED AI-s-wielding hiker somewhere, but we are talking in generalities here :-). The 200/4 will give you 90-95% of the performance of the 180/2.8 ED AI-s in almost any situation. If you happen to be shooting on any digital body made within the last 15 years, a simple ISO bump of one step is all you need in low light to keep up with the 180/2.8 ED AI-s, which also often needs a similar ISO bump just to keep the shutter speed high enough to prevent blurring with that extra weight swinging around when handheld ;-). If you can handle the 180/2.8 ED AI-s, you will not be disappointed. But the gains are incremental rather than monumental in most situations over the 200/4.

  Recommendations

    If you decide that a 200/4 Nikkor might meet your telephoto needs the best, what should you bear in mind? Seeing as the optics of the K, AI, and AI-s are identical, and weight only ranges between 30g/1 oz, there are only a few considerations when choosing one:

• AI or non-AI? - the original K-version obviously pre-dated the AI-era, but quite a few were factory-converted to AI (Automatic Aperture Indexing) by Nikon dealers. If you are looking at using one on a mirrorless digital body, a non-converted copy will likely work just fine and can often be had for a few dollars less. If you are planning to use the lens on an AI-compatible film body or DSLR, you will need to ensure that you get an AI-converted, AI, or AI-s version. AI-capable Nikon film bodies that are also able to mount non-AI lenses and use stop-down metering include: the F2A, F2AS, Nikkormat/Nikomat FT3, Nikon EL2, FM, FE, F3, F4, F5 (if factory converted), and the Nikon Df DSLR. The AI-s also provides best exposure accuracy in Program and Shutter-Priority modes on the FA & F-301/N2000 film bodies, although AI lenses will work fine in most situations.
• Focusing - The AI-s has a lighter focus touch than the K and AI (both of which are more comparable to the 180/2.8 ED AI-s: still smooth but you can definitely feel the heavier damping). Just a matter of preference. All have the same focus throw of 205 degrees. The K has finer ribbing on its focus ring than the AI & AI-s. Many of these lenses will need a re-grease for smooth focus operation, irrespective of which series they belong to. 
• Aperture Shape - Both the K and AI have a saw-tooth/ninja-star aperture shape similar to, but not as extreme as, many period Zeiss CONTAX-Yashica lenses, when closed down between f/4 and f/6.3 or so. The AI-s cuts that even further (by about half), with just a hint remaining at f/5.6. Some people obsess over the effect this can have on bokeh (love it or hate it) in certain situations. Most will never notice :-).  

  Wherefore Hast Thou Gone, O 200/4?

    The late-'70s were the last hurrah for the 200/4s of any brand. Nikon sold nearly 150,000 of the AI version over a four-year period from 1977-81. Compare that to just over 18,000 copies sold of the 180/2.8 AI (non-ED) for a ratio of 8 to 1 over the same period. The succeeding 200/4 AI-s version would accrue sales just above 80,000 over fifteen years as the Zoom and then AF Ages took hold. Third-party telephoto zooms (70-210ish mm focal lengths @ f/3.5-4.5 apertures) in particular became the undoing of the 200/4s. I can recall this from personal experience as a kid. Every person I knew with an SLR (including my Dad :-)) had a 50mm, a 28mm (usually aftermarket), and the aforementioned telephoto zoom (almost invariably aftermarket, usually a Vivitar or something similar, maybe a Series 1 if they were real extravagant; my Dad was not ;-)). And it isn't hard to see why, in retrospect, for the consumers that the manufacturers (Nikon included) were chasing at the expense of enthusiasts:

• Convenience - Zooms were heavily marketed as replacing up to 4 or even 5 (eyeroll) prime lenses in one fell swoop (85, 100/105, 135, 200). That was stretching it, as virtually no one would own every single focal length within that range, but most people getting on the zoom bandwagon at that time didn't know the difference. 
• Cost - Let's go back to 1977-78 for an example. And we'll use the popular and capable Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 to go head-to-head with our 200/4 AI Nikkor. Cost at Competitive Camera Corp in NYC, USA (adjusted for inflation in 2024) was $1,175 USD for the zoom and $910 USD for the prime. Now add in the alternative choice of the lesser Vivitar 85-205/3.8 Close-Focus Zoom ("it replaces your macro/micro lens, too!!!" - another eyeroll) for only $620 USD. And we haven't even added in the other primes that the zooms "replaced": 85/2 AI Nikkor (ok, ok, so you can't exactly call f/3.5 a direct replacement for f/2; details mere details ;-)) for $825 USD; 105/2.5 AI Nikkor (see above) for $865 USD; and lastly the 135/3.5 AI Nikkor (finally, an aperture match ;-)) for $660 USD. Alright, so we have a total cost for our 4 prime lenses of $3,260 USD and a combined weight of 1,675g/59 oz versus the Series 1 at just over a third of the cost and just over half the weight (940 g/33 oz.; or the 85-205 plain vanilla Vivitar for a less than a fifth of the cost, and again just over half the weight (907g/32 oz). But, lest we conclude that only the aftermarket zoom killed the 200/4 prime, check out Nikon's own excellent professional 80-200/4.5 AI Zoom-Nikkor (the second, improved version from mid-1977): $1,980 USD and 750g/26 oz.. Two-thirds the cost and less than half the total weight of our four primes), albeit you had to swallow that cost in one purchase rather than space it out over four ;-). 

   
    And that trend would only accelerate once the '80s came along. From 1977-85, Nikon sold over 502,000 manual focus telephoto zooms that reached 200-210mm at the long end. From 1977-96 (an extra 11 years) they sold just under 230,000 manual focus 200/4s (and nearly two-thirds of those were sold before 1982). Tellingly, no manufacturer has ever produced an autofocus 200/4 non-macro/micro lens. They simply let them die out. Zooms won. But did photographers? Well, there may have been more money left in their wallets and less overall weight in their camera bags, but there was no free lunch (funny how that keeps popping up ;-)). First, even the lightest, and arguably the strongest optically, zoom in our little informal comparison above is nearly 40% heavier in the hand than the 200/4 and that trend only increases with the shorter lenses it "replaces". It gets even uglier with the Vivitar duo: 67-75% heavier in the hand than the 200/4. And then there comes the optical performance. The highest compliment that could be paid to a zoom of the era was that it came close to an equivalent prime, optically. They simply had no hope of matching, let alone exceeding the latter, particularly at the long end of their focal range. The film SLR Zoom-era may well be called the "good-enough"-era. Performance was better than the plethora of AF lens shutter zoom point and shoots that came to dominate the sales charts for the next two decades, so that, taken with the convenience factor, was...good enough...for SLR consumers, and even many enthusiasts, as it turned out ;-).   

  Wrap-Up

    Does everybody need a 200/4? Nope. Are there viable alternatives depending on your budget and weight restrictions? Absolutely. But I will posit that anyone would be up against it to come up with a better price-to-performance ratio optic in the telephoto range irrespective of the SLR system you have. They were made in sufficient quantities to avoid the age-old supply/demand dilemma; few of them were used extensively, so there is currently plenty of selection for copies in Excellent or better condition; and that moderate aperture also means less-expensive "standard" filter sizes (anywhere from 52-58mm, generally), of which there are boatloads of high-quality, used, multicoated copies to choose from. For half a century of "non-progress", I like mine just fine ;-).

  References:

    Roland's Nikon Pages @ http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html
    The Thousand and One Nights - No.10 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging
    The Thousand and One Nights - No. 11 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging
    The Thousand and One Nights - No. 48 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging
    The Thousand and one Nights - No. 87 @ https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging
    SMC Pentax 200/4 Reviews @ https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews
    Various Nikon Catalogs @ https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/rlNikonNotebook
    Minolta SR Lens Index @ https://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html
    Minolta MC Rokkor(-X) Service Manual