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
  
 
TooManyShots
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


morrismike wrote:
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.


Is a totally different lens with the 80-400g. Here is a shot from my 80-200 2 ring with the back focusing fix. Is close to macro distance at F4 177mm

untitled by vracing, on Flickr

I rarely shoot beyond F3.5 with my 80-200. At f2.8, you get a bit of CA and blooming..depending on the light condition. By F3.5, they are all gone. By F4, the lens reaches its peak sharpness...assuming you get a copy which is well behaved..



Apr 23, 2017 at 12:48 AM
Danny W.
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Back in my film days I owned the 180/2.8 three times, each time thinking it would be a more comfortable choice than whichever version of the 80-200/2.8 I owned at that time. Every time I used it I found myself missing the flexibility of the zoom.

Danny W.



Apr 23, 2017 at 03:26 AM
mysh
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Danny W. wrote:
Back in my film days I owned the 180/2.8 three times, each time thinking it would be a more comfortable choice than whichever version of the 80-200/2.8 I owned at that time. Every time I used it I found myself missing the flexibility of the zoom.

Danny W.


Yes it really comes down to focal length. If you will likely use the whole range then the zoom is obviously more useful. I am someone who typically grabbed the 80-200mm for the long end so I found the 180mm to be a better fit for me. When I wanted 80-135mm I would grab a different prime.




Apr 23, 2017 at 04:10 AM
MN_Migrant
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


I'd wager that most use the 180mm these days as a poor man's 200/f2 for portraits, given its size and IQ edge over the 80-200mm. If you need the flexibility of a zoom then you're probably not using that focal length for portrait work, but rather, action/event type work.


Apr 23, 2017 at 03:01 PM
agrumpyoldsod
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


180mm on a crop body is nuts for weddings etc.. - that 270mm. I am not aware of a wedding or portrait photographer that shoots with this length - 105-135 being the current "flavour". If you already own the 70-200
or even the 80-200 - you will have a lot more versatility.

Edited on Apr 24, 2017 at 11:28 AM · View previous versions



Apr 23, 2017 at 10:36 PM
Smousefam5
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


agrumpyoldsod wrote:
180mm on a crop body is nuts for weddings etc.. - that 270mm. I am not aware of a wedding or portrait photographer that shoots with this length - 105-135 being the current "flavour". If you already own the 70-200
or even the 80-200 - you will have a lot more versatility.

You would be far better off upgrading your D7000 body and buying a D750.


I don't own either of the lenses and I don't do weddings (don't need THAT kind of stress). It would be candids at some distance, focusing primarily on candid headshots.



Apr 23, 2017 at 11:29 PM
morrismike
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


MN_Migrant wrote:
I'd wager that most use the 180mm these days as a poor man's 200/f2 for portraits, given its size and IQ edge over the 80-200mm. If you need the flexibility of a zoom then you're probably not using that focal length for portrait work, but rather, action/event type work.


Poor mans 200/f2? The eagle that is heavily cropped beyond belief would disagree.





  NIKON D7100    180mm    f/4.0    1/1000s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  




Apr 24, 2017 at 01:25 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Daniel Bliss
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


The 180 at f2.8 is quite noticeably sharper than the 80-200 at 2.8 and the same focal length setting; the 80-200 AF-D loses a fair bit wide open beyond about 140. Not too much difference at f4 and below.

However, note that the 180 is an internal focusing lens and IF lenses of that era tend to trigger purple fringing on digital. I have not used the 180 on digital so can't speak directly to that; I have used the 80-200 AF-D on digital and the same slight deterioration on film at the long end shows up on digital. Still, overall a good lens.



Apr 25, 2017 at 02:36 AM
morrismike
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Daniel Bliss wrote:
The 180 at f2.8 is quite noticeably sharper than the 80-200 at 2.8 and the same focal length setting; the 80-200 AF-D loses a fair bit wide open beyond about 140. Not too much difference at f4 and below.

However, note that the 180 is an internal focusing lens and IF lenses of that era tend to trigger purple fringing on digital. I have not used the 180 on digital so can't speak directly to that; I have used the 80-200 AF-D on digital and the same slight deterioration on film at the long end shows up on digital. Still,
...Show more

It is quite easy to correct in LR. In the immature eagle pic I took and posted a few responses earlier, every twig had a fringe. I removed the fringe yet the depth remained. CA is not the bogeyman and a small (correctable) price to pay for nice pics.



Apr 26, 2017 at 12:58 AM
CGrindahl
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


morrismike wrote:
Poor mans 200/f2? The eagle that is heavily cropped beyond belief would disagree.


I think you miss this person's intent with that comment, which is one I've made myself many times. I've owned two copies of the AI-s version of the 180 f/2.8 and each cost $300. Considering the second is absolutely mint, I think I got a great deal. Wide open the lens creates a delicious bokeh, of the sort created by the 200 f/2, but for one tenth the price, or if you're comparing only manual focus lenses, one seventh the price. That means it is an awesome performer that is incredible value for the money... hence the poor man's 200 f/2...






Apr 26, 2017 at 02:16 AM
morrismike
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


CGrindahl wrote:
I think you miss this person's intent with that comment, which is one I've made myself many times. I've owned two copies of the AI-s version of the 180 f/2.8 and each cost $300. Considering the second is absolutely mint, I think I got a great deal. Wide open the lens creates a delicious bokeh, of the sort created by the 200 f/2, but for one tenth the price, or if you're comparing only manual focus lenses, one seventh the price. That means it is an awesome performer that is incredible value for the money... hence the poor man's 200
...Show more




Apr 27, 2017 at 02:09 AM
CGrindahl
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


Missed your comment Michael.


Apr 27, 2017 at 05:34 PM
Oscarsmadness
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · 180 af 2.8 vs. 80-200 2.8D


I have the 80-200 two ring. It does suffer from purple fringing under f4 and back focusing at 200m, as was said a while earlier. I was wasting so much time fixing things in LR that I bought the 70-200 vr2 and everything just works now. it's great.

That said, I still do use the 80-200 regularly. It's as sharp as the new telezooms when it wants to be. However, in a portrait setting, I generally opt for my cheapo but still sharp 85mm 1.8D. Main reason is I don't like being very far from my subjects. I tend to stay around 15 feet from my people.



Apr 27, 2017 at 06:18 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