about | support
home
 

Search Used

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
42 192519 Jul 15, 2013
Recommended By Average Price
95% of reviewers $905.17
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.46
9.00
9.4
1986NAS_180

Specifications:
Superb telephoto-zoom lens for sports and nature photography
3 ED glass for high resolution and high contrast even at maximum apertures
Maintains fast f/2.8 aperture throughout zoom range

Filter Size 77mm
Compatible Formats FX
DX
FX in DX Crop Mode
35mm Film
f/Stop Range 2.8-22
Minimum Focus Distance 5.9' (4.9' in macro)
Magnification 1:7.1 (1:5.9 in macro)
Zoom/Focus Control Two-touch
Angle of View 30 to 12 Degrees
Groups/Elements 11/16
Tripod Collar Yes
Length 7.6"
Maximum Diameter 3.4"
Weight 2.84 lb
Usable Nikon Teleconverter TC-14b (manual focus only)
TC-201 or TC-14a (manual focus only & occasional vignetting may occur)


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3  next
      
Joey Accardo
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 340
Review Date: Jan 6, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $900.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: SHARP!!!, Solid, Tripod Foot, Flare Resistance, 2.8, Heavyish
Cons:
Heavyish (not too bad), Hood Not Included, Cheap Plastic AF/MF Selector.

I love this lens. Plain and simple. I mainly use it for protraiture, however it does see time for sports too. It also gets used for street photography as well and landscapes. All in all a great lens that I highly recomend.

Jan 6, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Joey Accardo to your Buddy List  
ajdooley
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13
Review Date: Sep 29, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $800.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Fast, sharp and smmoth accurate focus.
Cons:
Heavy

I bought this lens to use with my F5 and it hasmade a smooth transition to my D100 and now D200. On the F5 it seemed a little better balanced and easier to use because of the heftier body. It's ability to deliver a narrow depth of field compared with other slower zooms is valuable too. All around a lens I will not consider getting rid of.

Sep 29, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add ajdooley to your Buddy List  
rocklobster
Offline
[ X ]



Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 36
Review Date: Jul 11, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: $900.00 | Rating: 7 

Pros: Nice if you work hard on this lens
Cons:
Without monopod is very soft and blurry.

Don't buy this lens.

Jul 11, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rocklobster to your Buddy List  
signo
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 1, 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 1545
Review Date: Jun 6, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $700.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: My best lens, without any doubt. I can use it for everything, portrait, landscapes and sports. Im not a pro, but I think its one of the best.
Cons:
The weight. Too heavy for walk all day with it.



Jun 6, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add signo to your Buddy List  
rgsaunders
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 21, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Review Date: Jun 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $800.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: I have the older 2.8D ED AF without tripod mount and with a single sliding zoom control. Extremely sharp fast lense with beautiful bokeh. Built like a tank.
Cons:
No tripod mount, heavy (mixed blessing)

This is my lense of choice when doing nature shots, it works so well on those dreary days when the light is dull.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g168/rgsaunders/_DSC0677-01.jpg


Jun 1, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rgsaunders to your Buddy List  
LTan
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 26, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 17
Review Date: May 27, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: The AF-S 80-200 f/2.8 has excellent sharpness and bokeh. No vignetting at all with an DX sized sensor. The TC-14E II works great.
Cons:
The Hood is ridiculous big. I use de screw-in of the AF-D version. Very heavy (1600 gr)

I tried the New AF-D version but i did not like the torque reaction you feel during focussing (and is noisy too). The AF-D version has fast focussing but the AF-S is faster and is more quiet. I had to choose. A brand new AF-D or a second hand AF-S wich was 100 euro more expensive. I took the AF-S because if i did not like it, i could easely sell it again.


May 27, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add LTan to your Buddy List  
Silent Thunder
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 90
Review Date: Jan 9, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp!!, f/2.8!, beautiful colours, great contrast, feels solide
Cons:
Slow AF
Jan 9, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Silent Thunder to your Buddy List  
markgoldberg
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
Review Date: Dec 6, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: $800.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Excellent range and optical quality. I like the tripod collar that Nikon has added, and like the case and shade supplied as standard. I do not have the AF-S version.
Cons:
The lens now squeaks when focussing.

I bought this lens many years ago while still in film, so the $800 I paid is probably far off today's price. I got the one where the tripod collar was added, but I don't have AF-S.

The optical quality is great, and for me in digital is is equivalent to a 120-300. It continues to get great shots for me in important assignements, but is a little heavy and bulky to take on personal vacations that are not photo safaris. For travelling, my small 28-200 does has taken over for this one.

For some reason, the lens now makes a squeaking noise when focussing. This has been reported by others.

I think this is an excellent lens. I have no immediate plan to sell mine and will continue to use it for important work. However, if I had to replace it today, I would instead choose the 70-200 f2.8 VR.


Dec 6, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add markgoldberg to your Buddy List  
deapee
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 14, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2143
Review Date: Jul 27, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, fast, great AF
Cons:
it's a little bit heavy, but bearable

This lens is a great lens. It's super fast, and I personally couldn't afford the 70-200 VR, so I found a nice 80-200 used. It's super sturdy...I was a little worried about buying a used lens with no warranty, but once I picked this up and felt how sturdy it was and how great the build quality was, I was sure that even if treated roughly, it would still be fine.

Mine isn't the AF-S version or whatever, but I find that it focuses really fast (on my d70 -- I heard it focuses faster on the d2x and other top of the line cameras).

The only thing I can compare it to from experience is the Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 -- and this lens beats that one up and down the field and then some...superb quality, great colors, fast, and I have no problem hand-holding it at 200mm at a slower shutter speed (1/100 or so) in bad lighting.


Jul 27, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add deapee to your Buddy List  
rayshade
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 5, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 13, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $750.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Excellent optics, bokeh, sharpness, contrast, saturation.
Cons:
Weight, tripod collar could be a tad better

This is lens is truly one of the better telezoom lenses I have ever used. Built is superb better than 70-200VR G lens if not faster. Optically it performs charmingly for all f stops. Wide open at 2.8 is a tad softer compared to 5.6f and above. The image and bokeh are nothing short of breath taking. I am glad i didn't prolong an extra step going with cheaper brands. Eventually if one takes photography seriously they will end up having one of these. This is a class performer and a bargain against the AFS version and VR 70-200.

cons: The addition of the tripod collar leaves little place for the fingers. The lens is abt 1.3kg can be tiring for long sessions. Can u imagine if u carried 85mm,105mm,180mm all in the same bag?


Apr 13, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rayshade to your Buddy List  
mskad
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 20, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 115
Review Date: Mar 14, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $700.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Ultra sharp, even wide open (f/2.8), superb color and bokeh, affordable, fast AF
Cons:
See review

I love this lens very much: if sharpness is your concern, go for it! No need to stop it down, it is plenty sharp at f/2.8, from 80mm to 180mm and still very good at 200mm. AF is very fast and accurate with D2H, not so good with D70. Strangely, the lens seems to be soft at close-up distance.

Mar 14, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add mskad to your Buddy List  
litepixels
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 25, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 313
Review Date: Mar 11, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: I'm using "litepixel's name for now, he's a buddy at work with me. There is a 2x converter to use with this lens made by Tamron. An excellent one for that matter. I personally use a 70-200f2.8 afs ed if and its my best friend. My tamron wouldnt work with afs lenses but would with my 80-400 VR. 808silva.com
Cons:



Mar 11, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add litepixels to your Buddy List  
Corman
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 21, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 68
Review Date: Nov 29, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $699.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Fast focus with sharp results. Great all around lens. Great price with the Nikon rebate.
Cons:
Heavy and difficult to shoot handheld at times. Weak tripod collar and when attached to the monopod makes it difficult to use the zoom without banging your fingers on the mount.

This lens goes with me everywhere.

Nov 29, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Corman to your Buddy List  
crabtreec
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 19, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 21
Review Date: Nov 21, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Constant fast aperture, solid build construction, lightning fast autofocus.
Cons:
The price could be considered prohibitive, although used prices are dropping into a more moderate level.

This is my general shot around lens, and I wouldn't consider leaving home for any sort of photoshoot with it.

Nov 21, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add crabtreec to your Buddy List  
malina_amit
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 30, 2003
Location: Israel
Posts: 1
Review Date: Aug 31, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,000.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: I have the ED-IF version (what i did'nt know that it's inner zoom too) Very sharp, fast focos (compare to the size and weight) Isay It sure worth to pay a $ for each gram
Cons:
Boy it is very Havy , I do'nt need to jim no more

am i lucky

Aug 31, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add malina_amit to your Buddy List  
psystudios
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 22, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1041
Review Date: Aug 1, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: great value, awesome build, super focussing
Cons:
nothing, considering the price

The most expensive lense I have bought to date and boy is it value for money.

Sharp focussing, so much much better than my 70-300 ED lense.

A keeper for sure.


Aug 1, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add psystudios to your Buddy List  




Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
42 192519 Jul 15, 2013
Recommended By Average Price
95% of reviewers $905.17
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.46
9.00
9.4
1986NAS_180


Page:  1 · 2 · 3  next