Hate to seem like a noob, but I would like to have some opinions on the Nikon 80-200 afs lens. Is the focus speed comparable to the 70-200 afs vr lens? I switched to Nikon about a year ago and have been using a Sigma 70-200 HSM lens with my D300. Just would like to know if the 80-200 AFS lens would be a good upgrade in focus speed. Thanks in advance
The going price for an excellent condition 80-20 AF-S is not much different than a comparable 70-200. The 80-200 lacks the vignetting problem the 70-200 has, and it's still very sharp.
I don't know that you'll gain all that much in jumping from the Sigma to the Nikon in terms of focus speed, though. I understand that the Sigma HSM is pretty fast in itself.
some also say the 80-200 AF-S is a sharper overall lens than the 70-200 VR, though the VR is obviously better when being used hand held (VR) and therefor a large percentage of shots are "keepers". focus speed is similar from what i understand.
Hmmmm....was just thinking about this as I saw a used siggy 70-200 pop up locally on Craigslist. My brother is thinking of replacing his 80-200 AF-D with it but not because of the AF speed but rather because his AF-D has gotten a little bit up. If he does, I'll see if I can test drive it and will repost with an update. I will say, however, that I have nothing but good to things to say about my 80-200 AF-S....quick to focus, tack sharp, creamy bokeh and built like a tank.
scotipino wrote:
... I will say, however, that I have nothing but good to things to say about my 80-200 AF-S....quick to focus, tack sharp, creamy bokeh and built like a tank.
I agree completely. Iīll never sell my AF-S 2,8/80-200mm.
My greatest personal competitor for my AF-S 2,8/80-200mm is my AF 2,0/135mm DC. For portrait the bokeh of the 135DC is still better and itīs considerably smaller and lighter.
But for sports, animals and wenn I need a more variable zoom, the AF-S 2,8/80-200mm is my first choice. The AF of the AF-S is preciser and faster.
I've never used the Sigma 70-200, but my 80-200 focuses pretty slow compared to other Nikon AFS lens i've used. I've never used the 70-200 on my D300, but I used one once on a D80 and recall lightning fast focusing. I would not classify the 80-200 as fast focus. Dont get me wrong though, its a great lens though and very sharp.
I'm not sure if luminosity is referring to the Nikon AFS 70-200, but there is a pretty big price gap between the 80-200 and the 70-200VR, i'd say at least $500 and more like $800 for comparable copies. My reason for getting the 80-200 in the first place. Maybe with the relase of the updated 70-200 the prices for the v1 will come down. (hopefully!)
So I have owned All three of the Nikon's. I currently own the 70-200mm but with my D700 I am wondering why.
Nikon 70-200mm is amazingly fast but the vignetting on Full frame is really annoying. Optically I don't think it as good as the other two.
Nikon 80-200mm AF-S I would say is 90-95% as fast as the 70-200mm It is quite a bit longer and quite a bit heavier. The lens doesn't vignette on full frame which is why its price is as high as it is today. This is probably the sharpest of the 3 although I can't tell the difference between it and the older 80-200mm.
Nikon 80-200mm AF-D Is a slow pig with brilliant optics.
The Sigma should be as fast as either of the AF-S Nikons but the IQ is not even close.
After reading Jim's post, I just realized the OP was asking about the 80-200afs, not af-d. My comment is in regards to the af-d version (slow pig), so not really applicable. sorry.
Used several of the Sigmas and the 80200AFS. The Nikkor will give you faster focusing, but I can't say if it will be enough of a difference for you to warrant changing. What you will certainly gain (over the three Sigmas that I've had...two D's and one DG) is increased sharpness from 2.8-4/5.6 (depending upon the copy) and better contrast overall. The 80200FS is the sharpest zoom that I've used in this class followed very closely (very!) by the Tamron 70200...which is not going to meet your AF speed requirements from what I can infer from your question.
I want to thank all of you for your comments. They have all been very helpful.
For now, I think I will stick with the Sig untill the new 70-200 vr comes out. As one poster suggested, maybe the used version I's will come down a little in price
and then I may make the change since I'm still using DX format camera. My next step is to get signed up so I can post some of wildlife shots so you guys can see if this old guy has learned anything in the last 25 years!
the 80-200 afs is a top lens. always amazed over the quality of the pics, it is a fast lens etc. had thought about the 70-200 but decided against it for the unshapness in the corners problem. the 80-200 has a bit of vignetting, mostly gone by f4 and at 2.8 easily corrected, soooo the new one needs to be miles better for me to maybe change....
pr4photos wrote:
does the afs suffer from back focus on close ups at 200mm wide open like the push/pull AF 80-200mm?
I havent seen anything consistently that would point to that with mine. What I do like is how it performs wide open and even better at 200mm f/4. I love my lens.
I doubt its focus is much (if any) faster than the sigma but optically its stellar and the focus might be more reliable with the Nikkor. Its also built like a gold ring.
Although, like said before, at this point it might be worth upgrading if you see a reason for the VR because the prices of the 80-200 have seem to have gone up. I was able to get mine (with a crack in the plastic cover for the range indicator) for $900 shipped. Now ones in that condition are going for 1100-1200 and $1400+ new.
Im thinking about jumping to the VR myself even though I dont need it just because I think they are getting close enough in price on the used market and if the new 70-200 satisfies the FX crowd it will drive the value of the 80-200afs down.
I just returned home from photographing agility events at the Akita National in Eureka, Mo.; I used the 80-200 AFS lens exclusively for the agility events mounted on a D3 body. The weather for the agility events was horrific; it rained a couple of inches during my day of shooting, I kept everything dry by gaffer taping my umbrella to my Wimberley gimbal head. The performance of the D3 and 80-200 AFS was near perfect, I only had one image out of several hundred images that was out of focus. I think the reason the image was out of focus is human error, I seemed to have focused on a piece of the apparatus on the agility course. I used a current model 70-200 AFS VR a couple of years ago to see if it was worth the extra dollars to get the newer lens; my old 80-200 AFS was noticeably sharper than the lens I borrowed from NPS.
Well, let me preface by saying I have OWNED and used both the 80-200 AF-S and 70-200VR extensively. I would summarize the differences this way... the 70-200VR is a better, snappier autofocus machine. Anyone who argues this hasn't used them back to back. It's not like the 80-200AF-S is poor in terms of AF performance at all, it's really good comparing to other AF-S designs of the same time frame. The 70-200VR is snappier. Optically, on DX, I would say I like the 70-200VR better because the bokkeh is smoother and more "buttery", but on FX I do find there is a slight decrease in impressiveness from the VR1. I might even be tempted to go with an 80-200AF-S if I was shooting FX and critical sharpness were the highest priority for me. As a sports shooter though, I think the AF performance is more important. Both great lenses, both very very sharp. Both start to get weaker past 150mm. Results at 100mm are far better than at 200mm with both lenses.
I do find that the prices for used AF-S 80-200's are almost as high as the 70-200VR1 that I've seen. That would steer me towards the 70-200VR, personally, again unless you were going to be shooting FX only and needed critical sharpness at corners. My 70-200VR wasn't as bad as some seem to be on FX, but there was a little loss of sharpness, especially wide open where I spend most of my time (f2.8-4). Having said that, the FX bodies do have a vignette control function that helps with the vignetting on the VR1.
I will soon hopefully be able to compare to the new VR2 70-200...
I have both the 70-200 and 80-200AFs and still use them both. The AF speed is about a wash, I'd give the edge to the 70-200VR but not by much. IQ is also close, but my copy of the 80-200AFS is sharper than my copy of the 70-200VR. The AFS has higher contrast and is less prone to lens flare. My copy of the AFS is very good, there are some out there not as good due to some QC issues. The 70-200VR hasn't suffered QC issues as much (at least not optically) but they have had some issues. My first 70-200VR went back to Nikon 5 times before it was replaced. Mostly afs and vr issues though after the first time to repair it wasn't as sharp as before.
I've used both 80-200AFS and 70-200AFS back to back during a HS basketball game on a D700. There was noticable lag on the 70-200 while the 80-200 was instant. Even the newspaper guy who owned the 70-200 noticed it. Personally, I'd compare the AF speed of the 80-200 with the 300 2.8 AFS VR. The sharpness of the 80-200 over the 70-200 I'd agree with too.
Well, I won't argue with you, because I know you know of what you speak...
However let me rephrase then... MY copy of the 70-200VR was noticeably quicker for AF response than my 80-200 AF-S was. Maybe I had a weaker 80-200, although my friend with an 80-200 AF-S always comments that he feels my 70-200VR was snappier, to the point where he was tempted to find a 70-200VR instead. Have you tried using the 70-200VR with VR off in comparison to the 80-200?
To the OP... there are excellent reviews of the 70-200VR and 80-200 AF-S on www.bythom.com, www.naturfotograf.com, and www.photozone.de. Might be worth reading...
