I got an AF Nikkor 180 mm f/2.8 (pre-D) a short while ago, and soon realised I'd really like to zoom at these long focal lengths. Zooming with your feet doesn't work when you're shooting distant scenes, which is the main use I have for a long lens.
The 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D seems like an interesting option. Ken Rockwell gives it a glowing review, praising its build and materials in particular. The price, new or used, is significantly less than the price of the stabilised 70-200 mm options. The older lens is smaller and lighter, too.
But how good is this lens, optically, by 2012 standards? Photos, opinions, comparisons, links to reviews, etc. are welcome!
Don't care much for ol' Ken but he's dead on this time. I've been using mine since 1998 and it's still going strong. I made a trade and ended up with a 70-200 VR I and made a comparison and saw virtually no difference in IQ so I sold the 70-200.
I'd takes Ken's reviews with a grain of salt, he gives all things Nikon glowing reviews, there is good information in his reviews, I just take his opinions as just that, opinions. That being said, the 80-200 is a good lens but it has no VR. The 70-200 will yield better, sharper results. It works great will all the Nikon Teleconverters (this is the lens I'm buying along with the Nikon 2X TC-20E III, I just need to save a bit more since the D800 I have on order is cleaning me out). It's a case of you get what you pay for, if you don't care about VR the 80-200 is great lens, I've heard very good things about it and it's got rave reviews on B&H
I have one and it produces wonderful images. If you're not going to be using it in low light, it's a great option. However, If you going to be using it in low light to photograph moving subjects... VR is where it's at.
The 80-200/2.8 D is still a very competent lens, but it (or at least mine) had the following issues on digital:
- Focusing inaccuracies at 200mm wide open at near-ish distances. There seems to be some significant copy variation regarding this
- CA wide open at 200mm
- I also suspect it does not take a 2x TC (a modified TC20EIII) very well, as my 80-200AFS does not like it either
What's nice about it is the compactness/weight of the lens compared to more modern versions.
If you can get a good copy and live within it's limitations then it's fine.
I had a 80-200 and it was very sharp and worked well with my Tamron 1.4 TC. The main issue I had with it was the AF speed. Shooting soccer with it, the AF seemed a little too slow. I ended up selling it for what I paid for it (the 2 ring version holds value well) and just going with a 70-300 VR. I ended up getting a great deal on a Sigma 70-200 and the AF was significantly faster while the IQ was identical. I get a lot more keepers with the Sigma then I did with the 80-200, though I suppose my technique has improved somewhat as well.
Anyway I think depending on what you are shooting, the 80-200 is an awesome value.
I liked my 2 ring, but for me the "value" was much different, i'm reading kens review and alot is based around the fact it's the best value. some dead honest facts- AF-S 70-200 VR, kills it in AF speed even on a pro body, and VR in this range/weight- is very very important (sports/portaits).
at the current price of $800-1000, depending who you are the $1500 70-200 makes more sense. that being said- i bought and sold one mabey 2 years back for $575.00 (perfect condition 2 ring), and the price went crazy. at $575.00 it's a great value, almost no brainer. but at $1000 now? for me it's a no go- being the 80-200 AF-S is ussually around $1000-1200 used and it's a sharper lens than the 70-200 VR.
It's good value for the money, but it's not a great lens - at least not compared to the other Nikon lenses that came after it (80-200 AF-S, 70-200 VR).
I want the lens primarily to pick out architectural details or small parts of a broader cityscape or landscape, and to blur away distracting backgrounds with closer subjects when the need arises. I'd hope for excellent performance across the FX frame at moderate apertures.
Autofocus speed is irrelevant to me, but the questionable autofocus accuracy reported above is off-putting.
Image stabilisation would be nice, but the current VR version sells for around twice the price of the AF-D. That sounds like an awful lot of money, considering the lens would be an occasional-use luxury for me, not a day-in, day-out workhorse.
A few months ago I tried for weeks to find a good 80-200 mm AF-S model at an acceptable price, without success. The Silent Wave Motors are a terrible weak spot on those lenses. Most of the lenses I looked at in Paris (or asked questions about on eBay) had failed or failing motors. Those with newly-installed replacement motors were very expensive. The AF-S model is also an extremely large lens.
Every few months I consider the purchase of an f/2.8 tele-zoom. That's usually a sign that I'd enjoy the lens in the long-term. I usually regret purchases made on a whim.
S Dilworth wrote:
I want the lens primarily to pick out architectural details or small parts of a broader cityscape or landscape, and to blur away distracting backgrounds with closer subjects when the need arises. I'd hope for excellent performance across the FX frame at moderate apertures.
Autofocus speed is irrelevant to me, but the questionable autofocus accuracy reported above is off-putting.
Image stabilisation would be nice, but the current VR version sells for around twice the price of the AF-D. That sounds like an awful lot of money, considering the lens would be an occasional-use luxury for me, not a day-in, day-out workhorse.
A few months ago I tried for weeks to find a good 80-200 mm AF-S model at an acceptable price, without success. The Silent Wave Motors are a terrible weak spot on those lenses. Most of the lenses I looked at in Paris (or asked questions about on eBay) had failed or failing motors. Those with newly-installed replacement motors were very expensive. The AF-S model is also an extremely large lens.
Every few months I consider the purchase of an f/2.8 tele-zoom. That's usually a sign that I'd enjoy the lens in the long-term. I usually regret purchases made on a whim.
I hear you on a couple point. AF accuracy- i didn't mention it because i shot primarily with a D70 back in the day- the 80-200 AF ED, did "hunt" alot, too much for comfort actually (to a lesser extent on D2Xs/D2H- but modern age FX cams will probably do better with that.
SWM- I LOVE my old 28-70 lenses, but of 3 i've had- 2 had some level of "the squeak"- with as you mentioned is an indiction (not a clearly defined positive) of a failing AF motor which is a $250-300 repair.
Size of 80-200 (not so much), it is longer but weight wise a 1300/1560 gram weight difference between the AF ED and the AFS.
thier current on ebay for $1050-1195 for most, and at $800-$900 used for an AF ED here- i'm still going with a 80-200 AF-S. up to you though, i hear you on a casual use lens aswell- mine always were, ussually didn't even make the travel bag cut.
I have the lens and it has worked well for me on a D200 and now a D300. You cannot use the Nikon Teleconverters on it. You will need to get a third party TC.I have the Kenko 1.4
The older 80-200 might not be quite as sharp as the latest 70-200 AFS VR11 or focus as fast but it still is a very sharp and excellent lens, and I think it is still a good dollar value for those that can’t afford the latest greatest lens.
My 80-200 had focusing issues at 200mm and had a ghosting effect that came back 3 times and had to be checked by Nikon service.
Also the focusing wasn't nearly as accurate as the 70-200 VRI, and the focusing speed was quite slow.
But for the money that you can get one for it is still a fantastic value, and despite these issues I used mine for years and got good results until I could upgrade to a 70-200. If money is an issue then it is still a great 2.8 long lens option.
My older push pull 80-200mm packed up a couple of weeks ago, and I have just replaced it with a new twin ring 80-200mm. Does everything I need it to, and is tack sharp. The 70-200mm is a brilliant lens, but I can't justify the price difference when my clients won't see a difference
Can anyone elaborate on the issue of focusing accuracy at the long end? Is it caused by simple miscalibration (i.e. the focus is consistently off in a certain direction, at all f-numbers), focus shift (i.e. the focus is consistently off, but only at some f-numbers and/or distances), mechanical play in the geartrain driving the focus (i.e. the focus is unpredictably off), or something else entirely?
I love mine. Wide open it ghosts a little in certain light conditions, and it back focuses a hair at minimum focus distance shooting at 200mm, but stop it down just a notch you'd be hard pressed to tell any difference between it and a 70-200.
The "focusing Accuracy" problem is that at distances less than 7' or so, above 150mm @ f2.8 you get back focus with this lens. AT 135mm @ f2.8 I get good focus in the "Macro" range. Its really not a big deal because most modern zooms don't retain full focal length at close focus. So it's close focus is probably on a par with new zooms because you can still image @ f2.8 @ 135mm @ 5'.
Otherwise the only real issue the is the A/M switch. If you force it it will crack, it's about $200 at APS to get a new one. BTW the KenkoPro 1.4 works well as does the Canon 500D closeup lens with this lens.
Can anyone elaborate on the issue of focusing accuracy at the long end? Is it caused by simple miscalibration (i.e. the focus is consistently off in a certain direction, at all f-numbers), focus shift (i.e. the focus is consistently off, but only at some f-numbers and/or distances), mechanical play in the geartrain driving the focus (i.e. the focus is unpredictably off), or something else entirely?
Focusing "problem" may simply be speed of focus.
I've never really had a focusing issue with mine, although the lens does work best (ie focuses faster) with a professional body and with the D300/D700 than with lesser bodies. I've used it on a D50, D1X, D300, and D7000. On the D50 it took a bit to focus, on the others A-Ok.
Loved mine before going to the VR1, only complaint was the AF speed on my D7000 because the motor in the body isn't strong enough. IQ is great though, it's a great lens. You really can't go wrong with any of the Nikon 70/80-200 2.8s. They're all made to pro standards to hold up for years and years. My A/M ring was cracked from when I got it and never was an issue.
