Nikon's AF-D lenses, some of which are still made, are not much more bulky than their older manual lenses. Their focusing in the manual mode is not as smooth as a good manual lens, but it's adequate. I think that what makes newer autofocus lenses so bulky is incorporating motors and electronics inside. It's really the glass inside that makes the lens, but I have to agree that some of the newer autofocus lenses are real monsters compared with the older lenses in terms of size and weight.

I sometimes just put a 12 megapixel Canon Powershot in my pocket when I'm out and about, and I've taken some great pictures with it. But what you see is what you get. The Nikon D800e and then the D810 took things to a different level. With good lenses, you get medium format quality and the ability to crop heavily without noticeable loss of quality. You can't do that to the same extent with lesser cameras. Just the appearance of the pictures in general is eye popping compared with anything else I've ever used. Now that they're apparently "dumping" this camera with heavy discounts, including bundles with the 24-120 lens, I wonder if a replacement is on the near horizon. I can think of ways they could make the camera better, but I think 36 megapixels already challenges most lenses and exceeds their ability to resolve detail.

All three of your micro lenses are legendary. Your 80-200 f4.5 is as sharp as anything new. (I bought the f4 that replaced it, and it's tack sharp too.) I still have and use a 55mm f3.5 micro that predates your f2.8. I don't own a sharper lens, though it lacks a floating element for distance correction and is optimized for working close. I have a 50mm f1.4 that was my go to lens in the 70s. I put the AI aperture ring on it myself. Nikon has never made a 50mm lens, expensive or cheap, that isn't very sharp. The one "lemon" I see in all of your lenses is the 43-86 zoom. Not one of their best.

I have all of the equipment to be "back in the saddle again" sitting in my garage, Omega D2 enlarger with condensers/lenses for 35mm and 4 x5, the two formats I used back in the day. I have the tanks, trays and other equipment to make it work. I think my son in law will end up using it if he gets a larger place to live with room for a darkroom. I have nothing against darkroom work, but I've personally moved past black and white. Looking back on the many photos I took in college in black and white, they aren't so much an artistic expression as they are something that dates the photos and makes them look dated. (though I've very lucky to have them) This is just my personal feeling. I know that many still enjoy doing darkroom work. Besides, I'm so enthralled with the Nikon D810 that I bought that I feel like a kid at Christmas every day that I take the camera out. This is what keeps my interest going at a high level.

What do you do with all of this film that you shoot? Just curious. If you're just scanning it like many people these days, you're wasting time and money. A first generation image out of a camera sensor with the quality we now have will have more and better information than a second generation scan of film. These are reasons why I gave up film completely. I gave away my Nikkormat FT3. I gave away my Nikon FA. I kept my Nikon FTn for sentimental reasons (gift brand new from my father in 1969), but I'll never use it again.

I am stuck with perhaps thousands of rolls of film accumulated over decades of time. The idea of scanning it all is overwhelming, and I need to do it to be able to distribute the same pictures to all of my children. I bought a Canon flatbed, film capable scanner 3 years ago, and it is still in the box. I was born at the wrong time :-)

The business of taking and sharing pictures is best done digital for convenience, cost and speed. In fact, the market shows that phones have taken over much of this business. I used to think that 35mm film had the ability to outshine digital, and then I bought Nikon D810. It blows 35mm film away. I have nothing at all against people who still shoot on film. I gave my Nikon FA and a bunch of manual focus lenses to my son in law. He loves the camera. He loves darkroom work. It's a hobby, not a necessity. When I think of pulling out my Nikon Ftn, bought new by my father, I get sentimental and then say "Nah, forget it." Too much bother and money and time wasted. This is my opinion. My son in law doesn't share it. Obviously many people don't share it, and that's okay with me.

I bought my D810, 70-200 f4 VR and a 50mm f1.4 AF-D from a local camera store in the past couple of years. I bought two lenses from B&H in the same time period. I don't have a problem either way. I'd like to give the local guy the majority of my business so maybe he's going to be around in the future. Things are getting tough for smaller camera stores these days. I have to wonder if K.R. is somehow getting kickbacks. I wouldn't think that B&H or Adorama would work that way, but what do I know?

I've exchanged a half dozen e-mails with him. I've pointed out to him that he leaves obsolete information all over his web site from experience he had with equipment 10-15 years ago. He once compared digital and large format photography many years ago using a 6 megapixel Nikon as the digital example. That article is still on his site. He told me he doesn't have time to clean it up. It's almost comical they way almost everything he likes becomes the camera or lens that he always carries around with him. He would need a truck. I don't think he's always wrong. It's just hard to tell the difference. One thing I do like about his site is that it introduced me to the existence of equipment/cameras/lenses that I didn't know anything about. But I never trust everything he says.

You sometimes have to take Ken Rockwell with a grain of salt. Sometimes his reviews are right on. Sometimes the things he says border on psychotic, and I think he does that to get your attention. In any case, here is his review of your lens. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70210f4.htm

I don't have time for a complete internet search again on this lens, but I recall that others have had focusing issues. Perhaps there are too many variables including the camera to blame the lens for all of its perceived imperfections. One problem could be that people are buying this 30 year old lens second hand, and you never know how the lens was treated. Perhaps the lens you buy was found at the bottom of a ravine on Mt. Everest, and you can imagine how it got there. In any case, when you get a winner, you're happy, and that's all that counts.

I have found when buying used lenses like this on eBay, the lenses coming from Japan have been treated better than what you typically find in the used display of a local camera store.

If you want to know, I ended up buying the 70-200 f4 VR new, and it's a stellar performer. I can't deal with the weight of the f2.8 lenses attached to an already heavy camera. I did have to do a fine tune on the focus because of a front focus issue, so nothing is perfect.

I remember considering that lens right after buying my Nikon D810. I read a number of complaints about focus issues with the lens, and even Ken Rockwell complained about a focus issue. I have a Nikon 55mm f2.8 AF Micro I bought second hand that looks like a smaller version of your lens, and it seems to have some focus issues, but not all of the time. These are among the earliest Nikon AF lenses. I'm going to assume that you've not had any problem with yours.

I have to admit that I've never really followed Canon in the film days. I was happy with my Nikon cameras, including the FA that I mentioned. What you are saying is true. The Nikon FA that came along later was more sophisticated in many ways, but I'll admit it wasn't first with multiple shooting modes.

Are you talking about the 80-200 AIs manual focus lens? I bought one of those from a source in Japan on eBay for around $125. It's as sharp as a tack. Quite amazing considering how long ago it was made. The lens I got showed absolutely no signs of wear, even the slightest bit of scuffing on the metal lens mount. My son in law who still shoots a lot of film is using it on the Nikon FA I also gave him. I think that the lack of autofocus would be a drawback for many. but otherwise it's an excellent lens.

VR is not intended for shutter speeds of 1/500 or faster. In fact, there are a number of articles on the web explaining that using VR at high shutter speeds degrades sharpness. For example http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm VR is useful under challenging lighting conditions where you may not have access to a tripod. As others have mentioned, it doesn't sharpen moving subjects, only camera movement. If you're going to shoot sports at high shutter speeds, it has no value.

Shooting with a lens wide open is an art that has to be mastered. Most lenses are a bit soft wide open and at the next aperture, but what destroys the pictures is often the shallow depth of field. Up close, a face may not be entirely in focus (Eyes in focus, tip of the nose and ears out of focus.) Group shots of people may have some people in focus and others out of focus. I generally don't bother with it anymore. It was a necessity to deal with it in the film days, but now you can crank up the ISO and use a smaller aperture. Some of the better DSLRs can take pictures at ISO 3200-6400 with just a bit of noise that doesn't matter so long as you're not making huge enlargements.

Many film cameras had autoexposure options, even dating to the 1960s, but in 1983 with the Nikon FA, we had a film camera that could shoot in manual, aperture priority, shutter priority and program modes. It was also the first camera to use matrix metering. All of these features trickled down to later Nikon models, including the ones used today. I gave my FA to my son in law a couple of years ago, still in perfect working condition, and he loves it and uses it to shoot film regularly. It is manual focus, of course, not a drawback if you're shooting mostly static subjects. Film, of course, is manufactured at a set ISO (ASA as someone pointed out) but back in the day, you could process some films to give decent results at higher ISO.