fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1              end
  

Archive 2012 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?

  
 
maneatingshark
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


Really can't go wrong with this glass, it worked well for me on both a D90 and D300 for night football, soccer, water polo, and track sports as well as tele landscapes stopped down to f/8 or so. As others have stated it retains value very well and I sold mine to pick up an AF-S version (which focuses faster and seems to be slightly sharper to my eye). I haven't really had any of the aforementioned focusing issues if I remember correctly.


Apr 07, 2012 at 09:09 PM
Gregstx
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


I have one and it produces extremely sharp images for me on my D7000 with AF fine tune. All of my lenses need some AF fine tune. The 80-200 consistantly produces some of the sharpest images I can produce. I wasn't quit as thrilled with it on my D200 but the D200 didn't have AF fine tune. I don't use it for action photography due to slightly slower AF performance when compared to some of my other lenses.


Apr 07, 2012 at 09:28 PM
pr4photos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


Whilst on the subject of the 80-20mm is there any way of improving the tripod foot? It isn't big and the hole is set too far forward, so once attached to a tripod there is a reasonable amount of movement if tilted forward and back


Apr 08, 2012 at 04:32 PM
AndreasE
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


If you are tinkering with a D800, I'd not recommend it anymore
Andy



Apr 08, 2012 at 04:43 PM
slrl0ver
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


AndreasE,

Are you talking about 80-200 AF-D or 80-200 AF-S? Have you personally tried the 80-200's on D800 before making this recommendation?

I guess the biggest point of AF-D vs. AF-s isn't focusing speed but focusing accuracy on any high pixel count body (D300/D700/D7000/D800). I think AF-S is better but probably the backlash in AF-D depends on the condition of the lens.

- slrl0ver



Apr 08, 2012 at 05:19 PM
S Dilworth
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


According to Roland Vink's database, the 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D jumped to serial numbers over 1 million in 2006. It would be interesting to know if the focusing problems reported above apply to serial numbers above or below 1 million, or to both ranges (I suspect both ranges).

Slrl0ver: do you know for sure the backlash in the focusing mechanism significantly affects focusing accuracy? People above report back-focusing at 200 mm (at unspecified f-numbers), which implies systematic focus error, i.e. not random error caused by backlash. Focus shift might play a role, for example.

If backlash is the problem, the old 1988-1992 lens might do better than the current two-ring version, based on Ken Rockwell's observations of their respective gearing ratios:

Old lens: "One full turn (two half-turns) of the AF screw only pulls focus from infinity down to 88 feet (27 meters)"
Current lens: "One full turn (two half-turns) of the AF screw pulls focus from infinity down to 28 feet (8.5m)."

It all depends on where any backlash exists in the geartrain. Is it in the camera before the AF screw blade, in the high-speed portion of the geartrain in the lens, or in the low-speed section that finally turns the front lens group to focus?

Maybe I should just buy the lens and see!

AndreasE: could you elaborate on your comment? Thanks!



Apr 09, 2012 at 03:56 AM
slrl0ver
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


S Dilworth,

I don't have personal experience (yet?) with either 80-200 or the newer Nikon D700/D800 bodies. My comment on backlash was just stating that's the only aspect I would *expect* would really differ between the AF-D and AF-S versions of the lens -- focus accuracy.

My impression is that Nikon has done a very impressive job getting really good AF even with the "older" screw drive mechanism so it might be a non-issue.

I'm personally very interested and hope if someone has a D800 + 80-200 AF-D, they can comment on if there's any focus issues across the zoom range and/or if AF fine value tune varies.

- slrl0ver



Apr 09, 2012 at 12:42 PM
AndreasE
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


slrl0ver wrote:
AndreasE,
Are you talking about 80-200 AF-D or 80-200 AF-S? Have you personally tried the 80-200's on D800 before making this recommendation?


S Dilworth wrote:
AndreasE: could you elaborate on your comment? Thanks!


Sure, why not?

I own all 7 models of the 80-200/70-200mm range, so it is easy to compare those lenses based on practical usage with the D800.

http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/131190516/original.jpg
AiS 80-200mm/2.8
AF 80-200mm delimiter
AF 80-200mm
AFD 80-200mm 2-ring
AFS 80-200mm
AFS 70-200mm VR I
AFS 70-200mm VR II

Out of interest I compared all of them on my D800.

As all 3 AF lenses have the same optical design, they have the same abberations.

My personal ranking:
1) VR II - simply outstanding
2) VR I - limitations in corners, sharpness is a bit lower at f2.8 than the VR II
3) AFS 80-200mm - sharpness ok, low CA. VR is missing, which means faster shutter speed or higher ISO required vs the VR lenses
4) All 3 AF lenses: Nice lenses, but strong CA, cannot resolve D800 at f2.8, at f4 center improves, corner still lacking. at f8 good sharpness across frame.

The AiS is still impressing me:
At f2.8 a bit soft, but better than the 3 AF lenses. At f5.6 good overall sharpness. It has after the VR II the least distortion. AF is missing

rgds,
Andy

.



Apr 09, 2012 at 07:39 PM
---XR---
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


AndreasE wrote:
Sure, why not?

I own all 7 models of the 80-200/70-200mm range, so it is easy to compare those lenses based on practical usage with the D800.

http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/131190516/original.jpg
AiS 80-200mm/2.8
AF 80-200mm delimiter
AF 80-200mm
AFD 80-200mm 2-ring
AFS 80-200mm
AFS 70-200mm VR I
AFS 70-200mm VR II

Out of interest I compared all of them on my D800.

As all 3 AF lenses have the same optical design, they have the same abberations.

My personal ranking:
1) VR II - simply outstanding
2) VR I - limitations in corners, sharpness is a bit lower at f2.8 than the VR II
3) AFS 80-200mm - sharpness ok, low CA. VR is missing, which means faster
...Show more

man you must own close to every nikon lens, i'm afraid to ask but you haven't tracked down a 1200-1700 5.6-8.0 for somewhere in your collection? i've only seen 1 or 2 of the 15 come up for sale. sorry for OT.



Apr 09, 2012 at 07:58 PM
Ho1972
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


S Dilworth wrote:
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?


It apparently has as much or more to do with the camera body as the lens itself. I went through 3 copies of the 80-200 trying to find one that I could live with on my D200. All behaved essentially the same way: fairly consistent backfocus above 135mm at distances (in some cases) out to about 30 feet.

I intended to sell copy #3 but never got around to it. Then I bought a D300 and the 80-200 suddenly became a brand new lens. Still a little soft (veiling flare) wide open, but simply outstanding in every other respect. I gave it a little AF fine tune initially but now I shoot with the tuning off most of the time.

So make of that what you will. My advice is to buy one from a place with a good return policy. It will either work or it won't.



Apr 09, 2012 at 08:01 PM
S Dilworth
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


Thanks. Nice comparison photo, AndreasE.

After reading more reports on the web, I don't think mechanical backlash is the main source of the focus problems. There might be some backlash, especially in worn lenses, but backlash doesn't fully explain the reported performance.

Neither do I think simple focus shift is primarily to blame, although the 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D clearly does have some focus shift. (If you think it's surprising that an f/2.8 lens has significant focus shift, consider that the front group of this lens has a focal length of about 120 mm and a relative aperture of about f/1.6, which is very fast. The old AIS lens that impresses AndreasE has a longer and slower front group, which would normally perform better, at the obvious expense of size and weight.)

Looking closer, it seems Nikon has been warning about focusing problems with the 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF lens for years. The warning has been tweaked many times, too. Here's its evolution, for selected cameras:

D1X, August 2001 user manual:
no warning

F5, December 2002 user manual:
no warning

D100, September 2004 user manual:
"If an AF-80–200 mm f/2.8S, AF 35–70 mm f/2.8S, new-model AF 28–85 mm f/3.5–4.5S, or AF 28–85 mm f/3.5–4.5S lens is used, the image on the matte screen in the viewfinder may not be in focus when the in-focus indicator is displayed. Focus manually using the image in the viewfinder as a guide."

F6, November 2004 user manual:
"When AF 80-200mm f/2.8, AF 35-70mm f/2.8, AF 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 or AF 28-85mm 3.5-4.5 is used in a telephoto zoom position at close range, image on the clear matte field may not coincide with the focus indication. In this case, focus manually using clear matte field."

D200, August 2006 user manual:
"If AF 80–200 mm f/2.8S, AF 35–70 mm f/2.8S, new-model AF 28–85 mm f/3.5–4.5S, or AF 28–85 mm f/3.5–4.5S is zoomed in while focusing at minimum range, image on matte screen in viewfinder may not be in focus when in-focus indicator is displayed. Focus manually using image in viewfinder as guide."

F100, April 2010 user manual:
no warning

D700, November 2010 user manual:
"When focusing at minimum focus distance with AF 80–200mm f/2.8, AF 35–70mm f/2.8, AF 28–85mm f/3.5–4.5 <New>, or AF 28–85mm f/3.5–4.5 lens at maximum zoom, in-focus indicator may be displayed when image on matte screen in viewfinder is not in focus. Adjust focus manually until image in viewfinder is in focus."

D7000, March 2011 user manual:
"When AF 80–200mm f/2.8, AF 35–70mm f/2.8, AF 28–85mm f/3.5–4.5 <New>, or AF 28–85mm f/3.5–4.5 lenses are zoomed all the way in at the minimum focus distance, the in-focus indicator may be displayed when the image on the matte screen in the viewfinder is not in focus. Focus manually until image in viewfinder is in focus."

D800, January 2012 user manual:
"When focusing at minimum focus distance with AF 80–200mm f/2.8, AF 35–70mm f/2.8, AF 28–85mm f/3.5–4.5 <New>, or AF 28–85mm f/3.5–4.5 lens at maximum zoom, in-focus indicator may be displayed when image on matte screen in viewfinder is not in focus. Adjust focus manually until image in viewfinder is in focus."

So around 2004, Nikon:

1. created a problem (with a new autofocus system or logic),
2. discovered a problem that had hitherto gone unnoticed, or
3. decided to admit a known problem for the first time.

A year later, Nikon bumped the serial numbers of the 80-200 mm AF-D to the 1-million range. Whether anything changed in the lens at that time, I don't know. If the focusing was fixed, Nikon didn't admit it by specifying serial numbers under 1 million in the warnings above. It's very possible nothing was changed in the lens.

Edited on Apr 10, 2012 at 04:54 AM · View previous versions



Apr 10, 2012 at 04:49 AM
AndreasE
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


S Dilworth wrote:
Thanks. Nice comparison photo, AndreasE.

You are welcome.

If you would like a deep dive in the architecture of lenses in this series, take alook at Pierre Toscani's beautiful website.
http://www.pierretoscani.com/echo_telezooms_english.html

Andy



Apr 10, 2012 at 04:53 AM
hlavo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


pr4photos wrote:
Whilst on the subject of the 80-20mm is there any way of improving the tripod foot? It isn't big and the hole is set too far forward, so once attached to a tripod there is a reasonable amount of movement if tilted forward and back


Actually it balances perfectly with pro bodies, or the D200 and D300 (and even the D7000) with battery grips attached. It is only unbalance with lightweight single bodies. But that is true of all Nikon tele lenses, not just this one.



Apr 10, 2012 at 06:20 AM
pr4photos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · 80-200 mm f/2.8 AF-D still viable?


I obviously didn't word that right. I use it with a battery gripped D700, and yes sitting on a tripod its perfectly balanced, but there isn't enough of a foot to stop any rocking movement if you push the whole thing (camera and lens) forward and back. Its not like a camera body attached to a tripod as the camera body has much more of a base to sit on the tripod.


Apr 10, 2012 at 09:37 AM
1              end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1              end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account