Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D
  
 
Smousefam5
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


What are your thoughts? I will be shooting with a D7000 and will exclusively be informal event shooting at church as well candids of family. I already have the 50 and 85 1.8 D lenses.


Apr 19, 2017 at 09:07 PM
Vcook
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Primes can be limiting, particularly compared to the flexibility of a zoom. Only you can answer the question as to which would suit you better based on how you like to shoot.


Apr 19, 2017 at 09:38 PM
Charles Loy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Image quality wise, both make splendid photos at f2.8, but my zooms (VR1 and VR2) vignette a bit and the prime does not.


Apr 19, 2017 at 09:44 PM
TooManyShots
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Hmmm....you don't suppose you are referring to the 80-200 AF D 2 ring version? If so...is a tricky lens. I love this lens a lot. But..here is a BIG but so that you don't end up wasting money. The lens is of older design meaning that AF accuracy can not be guaranteed on the today's DSLR AF system. The lens is known to be back focusing at the longer end, around 155mm to 200mm when the focusing distance is around 20ft or so. My copy has the same problem and I am shooting with a D7000. No amount of AF tuning could fix it. It has something do with the lens aberration causing the AF to misjudge its distance.

I managed to mitigate it by PHYSICALLY repositioning the front group lens element AWAY from the sensor. Now, instead of some 20ft shooting distance, my copy would only back focus 2 inches or so under 10ft shooting distance, at 155mm to 200mm. And tack sharp from 135mm down to 80mm wide open under ALL shooting distance.

The chance that your copy would show the same back focusing issue is HIGH. The only way to mitigate it, from my experiences, is to dissemble the lens and to change how far the front group lens element should be tightened. This may require adding a shim. I used blue loctite to "glue" it in place. At my current position, without any means to glue or tighten the lens front element group to the AF barrel, it would wobble and loose.

Second issue is that the AF noise is somewhat loud because is an AF D lens after all. Your biggest hurdle is to get the lens to focus properly at wide open at all focal lengths under your typical shooting distance. Also, in order to weather seal or dust seal the lens, you need a front protective filter. The lens is poorly sealed by the today's standard. If you are getting an used copy, more than likely you would see some significant amount of dust inside or specks inside..unless the seller cleaned the lens at one point.

If you have the money, try the Tamron 70-200 vc. I think someone is selling one on the message board for about $770. If you must get a Nikon, AF S 80-200 is a good choice....kind of if the AF S motor does not die on you in few years. Otherwise, yeah, Nikon VR1 should do.

Now, there is the Push and Pull AF D version. I have to google to see if it has the same back focusing issue with the today's DSLR AF system....

AND...my AF D 2 ring version would need -17 AF tuning to AF properly.

Edited on Apr 20, 2017 at 12:10 AM · View previous versions



Apr 19, 2017 at 09:59 PM
Smousefam5
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Sorry...was referring to the push/pull version...


Apr 19, 2017 at 10:07 PM
TooManyShots
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Smousefam5 wrote:
Sorry...was referring to the push/pull version...


Just googled the subject..yeah, it has the same problem. Someone recommended to remove the brushing reporting the focusing distance to the camera...to fix the back focusing issue. Interesting idea though.



Apr 19, 2017 at 10:15 PM
TooManyShots
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Thought this is an interesting read....

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54379496



Apr 19, 2017 at 10:31 PM
Smousefam5
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


TooManyShots wrote:
Thought this is an interesting read....

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54379496


Thank you for posting that! Knowing myself the way I do, I would be very hesitant to disassemble any lens I cared about.



Apr 19, 2017 at 10:46 PM
TooManyShots
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Smousefam5 wrote:
Thank you for posting that! Knowing myself the way I do, I would be very hesitant to disassemble any lens I cared about.


You can get one where you can return it...if I were you.



Apr 19, 2017 at 11:03 PM
mysh
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


I have owned both lenses. I much prefer the 180mm but it is more to do with size and when I use that type of lens I am usually wanting it on the long end.
Both can take nice shots but i got a lot more keepers from the180mm.



Apr 19, 2017 at 11:29 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Smousefam5
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


mysh wrote:
when I use that type of lens I am usually wanting it on the long end.


Good point. I would probably fall into that category as well. At least I do with my 55-300. After looking at the specs I also like how small the prime is compared to the zoom.




Apr 19, 2017 at 11:37 PM
morris
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


If you had a second body then mounting 2 of the 3 primes and rotating as needed would work. Otherwise I don't think you can beat the convenience and speed of the zoom.

Morris



Apr 20, 2017 at 12:02 AM
Charles Loy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


80-200 push-pull zoom is older of this bunch. Had one in the mid 90's. No tripod foot makes it useless on a tripod. I assume Nikon wanted us to place the body on a tripod with that heavy lens hanging out front. It is off balanced and a lot to have unsupported. I recall the lens was sharp, but that was film days and we did not measure sharpness in the way we can now. I dumped it and took the 2 ring when it was introduced,


Apr 20, 2017 at 01:23 AM
TooManyShots
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Just want to update about the whole idea of removing the distance reporting brushing to fix the back focusing, close shooting distance issue. Yes, it does work. I just tried it. I could get a precise focus in 200mm under the marco distance on the lens. Of course, at f2.8 at those distance, is soft. However, my long distance focus accuracy is way, way back focusing now. Can not be fixed with AF tuning. I think I would leave the brushing on since I don't use the lens for close distance shooting.

One option to fix ALL is to mask the contact plates with some tape when the distance scale is under 4 meters. That the distance information would not be conveyed to the camera when the shooting distance is close, but only at a longer distance. I not sure how long term this solution is....I guess depending on what tape you use.



Apr 20, 2017 at 06:28 PM
TooManyShots
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Oh well, what do you know....masking the contact plates indicating the 4 meter distance and closer solved the whole back focusing issues. The lens is only reporting the distance information to the body from 4 meter to infinity. No more back focusing at the marco distance under all focal lengths. At 155mm to 200mm, I have to stop down to F4 in order to get rid of the aberration. Before, can not get sharp focus at 200mm under 12ft and closer.

I cleaned the contact with some rubbing alcohol before masking it with some clear packaging tape. Hopefully, it would last for a while.



Apr 21, 2017 at 02:49 AM
Smousefam5
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Way above my pay grade!


Apr 21, 2017 at 03:36 AM
TooManyShots
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Smousefam5 wrote:
Way above my pay grade!


Hahahah...just for future reference in case anyone googling the subjects.... Personally, I don't mind fixing another copy if I have a chance....



Apr 21, 2017 at 03:49 AM
lbloom
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


mysh wrote:
I have owned both lenses. I much prefer the 180mm but it is more to do with size and when I use that type of lens I am usually wanting it on the long end.
Both can take nice shots but i got a lot more keepers from the180mm.


Exactly this. The 180 was a revelation to me after lugging around the push-pull (which was optically fine).



Apr 21, 2017 at 09:53 AM
Danner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


I joined photo.net in 1997, and I swear, we had this exact same discussion back then. .


Apr 22, 2017 at 12:07 AM
morrismike
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


The 180 is amazing. I've been wanting a 80-200 two ring but I have a 80-400G and seem to get by with that.


Apr 22, 2017 at 01:56 PM
1
       2       end






FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password