Nikon AF 80-200mm Zoom-Nikkor F/2.8D ED

[Baxter]

Just wondering if anyone if has any thoughts, opinions, or experience with this lens. I currently carry a 18-105, and a 50mm so I need something with a bit of reach. I like the idea of 2.8 lenses, since we have young kids and there are a lot of indoor recitals and events where I can't use a flash.

 

I know I could pick up a cheaper zoom, but I'm pretty sure I won't be happy with the output, and I'd like to avoid having to buy everything twice. I was originally holding out for the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Telephoto Zoom Lens but it is double the price, and the review differences between the two don't seem to warrant it.

 

Any thoughts?

[bukieco]

I have one. It's heavy. I carried it around for a couple hours at a memorial day event, and didn't have much problem, however. I use a black rapid strap connected to the tripod collar on the lens, and the weight is distributed evenly. Pictures are outstanding. I assume you have a Nikon that has a built in focus motor (this will not focus on d40,d60,d3000,d5000). AF can be a bit slow, but I don't really mind. 2.8 is quite sharp, however, it is heavy like i said. Use it on a monopod, and it helps a lot. Colors are vivid, and 2.8 really helps isolate subject matter.

 

033.jpg by bukieco, on Flickr

[chipmaster]

There two main version the AF-D and the AFS

 

They are both good lense, older designs than the newere 70-200 2.8. IMHO they are likely better on FX but slower focusing. If you are looking at the AF-D it requires a body motor on and thus only the high end Nikon bodies and D90/D700 can drive it.

 

Optically the Tamron and Sigma are probably pretty close. Tamron better/equal IQ, the Sigma faster focus than the 80-200 2.8s

 

For 900 any of the three are reasonably similar, but the Nikon will hold value and resale easier.

 

Just wondering if anyone if has any thoughts, opinions, or experience with this lens. I currently carry a 18-105, and a 50mm so I need something with a bit of reach. I like the idea of 2.8 lenses, since we have young kids and there are a lot of indoor recitals and events where I can't use a flash.

 

I know I could pick up a cheaper zoom, but I'm pretty sure I won't be happy with the output, and I'd like to avoid having to buy everything twice. I was originally holding out for the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Telephoto Zoom Lens but it is double the price, and the review differences between the two don't seem to warrant it.

 

Any thoughts?

[framer]

The #1 reason to get it it is a PRO lens. This is was the main lens that every nikon pro use to have in their bag before VR was delivered to us. Personally VR is overrated. Yes I currently have VR lens but only turn it on for shutter speeds 1/125 or slower and want to show motion. I prefer to leave it off and use a tripod. I'd say I use VR less than 1% of my photography. Airshows, aerial photos, photos taken from a moving car VR is king.

 

framer

[Baxter]

Great feedback...thanks. I have the D90, so i can manage the lens. I'm a little scared of the weight of the lens. But I suspect the mono/tripod will see a lot of use with it.

[framer]

But I suspect the mono/tripod will see a lot of use with it.

 

 

A lot less than you think.

 

framer

[awboater]

This is a really great lens.

 

I have that lens also, and for an amateur, it is a great way into pro glass on a budget. I use it on a D90.

 

I bought mine new last year, but realize there have been several versions made.

 

The oldest version is the "push pull" version, in which you zoomed by pushing the lens barrel in and out. This version can be had for around $500 used, but be aware that it is the "slow-focus" version. The focus system in this lens was very slow, and when critics of this lens today mention the slow focus issue, they are talking about the push-pull version.

 

The later versions did not have the slow focus issue, and those lenses are characterized by the rotate to zoom ring. That is the version I have, and while not as fast as the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8, it is not as expensive either.

 

The latest version still goes for around $900. Be aware though that a common problem with these lenses is that the manual/auto focus ring switch thing can crack.

 

Since I could not find a lens without a cracked manual/auto ring under $1,000 last year, I bought a new one as it was not that much more - which says a lot about the quality of the lens (having such a high retail value).

 

As stated, there was also an AF-S version of the lens, but Nikon only made it a few years. I presume they discontinued it so that it would not be in competition with their first AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8, as the release of that lens and the discontinuance of the AF-S version was pretty much the same time.

 

When I tested the focus speed, it was faster than the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8, which is remarkable as the Sigma has an internal focus motor. And I found that incredibly my D90's motor is more powerful than a D300s - so the D90 focused faster than the D300s.

 

After having said all of that, I don't take this lens on vacation. I use it mostly for sports and when I want great bokeh (and yes, it has great bokeh).

 

When I am cruising, the lens is too heavy, so I take a 18-200mm for my all-around lens. This lens is not optically as good as the 80-200 by a long shot, but when I stop down to about f/8, it is close enough.

 

While the lens is heavy, it is actually lighter than the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. Not sure about Tamron - I would not own any of that stuff.

 

When I use this lens with my D90, I usually put my battery grip on as it helps balance the camera. Otherwise, I never use my battery grip as it looks to silly running around with a DSLR with one if it is not needed.

 

The 80-200mm f/2.8 is my benchmark lens. The Sigma and Tamron are junk compared to this lens. You can never go wrong buying Nikon pro glass.

 

So for other than cruise vacations, it is a great lens to have.

 

One thing you will to do though is learn how to use the lens. With the fast f/2.8, the lens is easy to mis-use, which is the nature of high-performance lenses.

 

You will probably want to go to spot focusing - at least initially - as the camera can false focus pretty easily on the wrong object, and with such a limited DoF at 200mm and f/2,8, focusing on the wrong spot and you could end up with a blurry shot. So there is some learning curve with this lens.

 

This happened to me initially. I was getting a lot of out-of-focus photos until I realized that the camera was in matrix focusing, and any focus error at 200mm and f/2.8 will result in the intended area being out of focus.

 

Hera are a few examples of this lens:

 

 

Great cream-cheese bokeh.

 

 

Nine blades in the aperture diaphragm make star patterns in the light.

 

Taken wide open at f/2.8

 

 

Same image cropped showing the sharpness of the lens. Notice the hair on the right-eyebrow, pretty sharp for f/2.8 and a highly cropped photo. You cannot even see the eyebrow hairs in the main photo.

 

So other than not taking it on cruises as I prefer to pack light, it is a really great lens. Both Ken Rockwell and Thom Hogan recommend this lens - which is something rare.