 |
|
|
Mark K
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2003
Location: China
Posts: 823
|
|
Review Date: Jul 15, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $899.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, light weight, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Lack of AFS
|
|
|
A great alternative to expensive VR versions
|
|
 Jul 15, 2013
|
|
the solitaire
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 22, 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 2746
|
|
Review Date: Jun 23, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, no AF motor, smaller then the AF-S lenses, built tough
|
|
Cons:
|
Moving front element, no weather sealing
|
|
|
I bought this lens after careful consideration and after trying several 3rd party alternatives first.
A first I tried my luck with 3rd party lenses. Tried 2 Tokina ATX-Pro 80-200 f2,8 lenses (both suffered from haze, one from an optical malfunction), a Sigma 70-200 f2,8 and I held a Tamron 70-200 f2,8.
In the end I returned all of those to the respective sellers because none of them could convince me through optical and/or build quality (the Tokina is actually built both better and tougher then this Nikon).
After hearing rumors about the availability of AF-S replacement motors for the AF-S 80-200 I decided to stick with a screwdriver type AF for a lens in this price class. (the AF-S lenses are quite expensive if photography is just a hobby)
When I picked up this lens however all worries were forgotten. The copy I own has a cracked A-M ring (still functional but with a visible crack), but is like new otherwise.
Optically itīs as good as they get. Sharp enough wide open, but itīs pin sharp from f4 onwards through to f11. The AF 180 f2,8 prime is sharper along the edges and in the corners but since it doesnīt zoom and is far more vulnerable I prefer the much bigger and heavier zoom lens.
Build quality is quite impressive, even if the Tokina beats the Nikon in most respects there.
When you find or own a nice copy of this lens, keep it. I doubt a newer plasticky, gimmick laden lens will make you any happier.
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2013
|
|
mohawk51
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Nov 17, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The Nikkor Build!!!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
None noted
|
|
|
What can I say? Built like a tank and weighs as one too. Great ED glass (3). SIC on the lens elements and very, very sharp! Think I paid about $700 for mine brand new. I hear they've gone up a bit since then. That's what I call an investment!
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011
|
|
NikonAndy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1891
|
|
Review Date: Jun 24, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. 2.8 is even very good on my copy. Focuses fast on the D3, not like the 70-200, but quick. Build is solid.
|
|
Cons:
|
Can hunt in low light, but that's to be expected...
|
|
|
I use this lens a lot for weddings, even some portrait work. I have a really sharp copy, even beat it around a bit as I use it professionally. This lens is an excellent substitute for the 70-200 at it's price point.
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2010
|
|
Dave Tyrer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 5, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheaper than 70-200, sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
none yet
|
|
I actually use this for video on my Sony EX3 and the detail I get is amazing. I am very pleased with this zoom. I've yet to try it with a TC14e though.
This is a short sequence I did of a dragonfly, using this lens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l10_2sNJ3I
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2009
|
|
fdevyatkin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 11, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2868
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
great color, contrast, bokeh.
focuses very fast on my D700
pics have that "look"
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy for all day use.
|
|
|
I use this for birding (larger birds) and sports, and with ss at 1/1600s or faster, I don't miss VR. The screw drive focus mechanism works quickly and accurately on the D700. The 2.8 aperture lets me freeze the action and the baseball. Very good resolution wide open and, stopped down to f/4, excellent!
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2009
|
|
mendis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1467
|
|
Review Date: Feb 22, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent contrast and colours. sharpness from f4 onwards
|
|
Cons:
|
soft at f2.8
|
|
|
When used at f4 apertures onwards, this lens rocks at every aspect. But, I was hoping for it to be sharp at f2.8; just like the AFS80-200f2.8.
Build is excellent as usual with lenses of this calibre. I wouldn't recommend this lens for portraits unless you can live with the softness at f2.8.
For general photography, this lens will do well in most situations except low light; again because of the softness.
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2009
|
|
bgorum
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 270
|
|
Review Date: Feb 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Beautiful image quality. Works well with 5t and 6t close-ups.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheap construction of auto/manual focus clutch and switch.
|
|
|
I purchased this lens used about six months ago and have been really impressed with it's image quality. I use it mostly for close-up work with the nikon 5t and 6t close up lenses. On a DX camera there is no vignetting at any focal length. In fact I just leave the 77-62mm step down ring on the lens at all times and there is no vignetting at normal shooting distances either. Before buying this lens I had been using the older nikon 75-300, (the one with the tripod mount). I figured that since I shoot mostly at small apertures, (for adequate depth of field), I would see little difference in image quality between the two lenses. Boy was I wrong! The 75-300 was a good lens but images from this lens are noticeably better. Not sure if it is actually a difference in image quality, the beefier tripod collar, or more accurate focusing thanks to the larger aperture. I can definitely recommend this lens and the two element diopters as an alternative to a fixed focal length macro lens. My only complaint with the lens is the cheep way that the manual focus clutch is designed. There is a small t shaped metal piece held on by two tiny melted plastic tabs beneath the focus ring that engages the clutch for manual focus. Mine broke and I had to fix it with JB weld. Also the manual/auto switch broke on mine as well. The lens is still usable, but the poor design of these two features is surprising on this lens.
|
|
|
Feb 9, 2008
|
|
pwsth1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 16, 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 16, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
absolute total quality of all aspects
|
|
Cons:
|
very heavy
|
|
|
I own the push-pull version of this lens. It has been with me for many years, and has take a lot of abuse.
It still gives me the best images in all possible situations, especially in low-light situations (indoor sports as Judo and ice-hockey matches, also I make images of my children's performances in lighting situations other parents can not.
It's my absolute favourite! Only a little soft at 2.8.
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2008
|
|
Jeff Spain
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 4, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $420.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
quaility, zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
weight
|
|
|
I bought this used at the local camera store in the 1990's. This and the 35-70mm was what all the pros used back in the film days. No VR or AF-S, but a wonderful lens. I used this lens all the time on my film cameras. Since switching to digital, I now only use this for sporting events. For events with the 1.5 DX multiplier this becomes a 105-300 mm lens and is perfect for sports! In the studio, I still use it sometimes for portraits, but prefer my 85 mm lens for that.
If you buy a UV filter, you receive a special lens cap that goes with it. The lens is partially recessed, so a UV filter may not be needed as much to protect the glass. Love shooting wide open with the pleasing bokeh around f3.3 to f4
|
|
|
Jan 4, 2008
|
|
Bill Hollinger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 576
|
|
Review Date: Jan 1, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
fairly fast AF on a D3, good image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
I have used the Canon 1D2 and 1Ds2 for the past several years, but just bought a D3 to replace the 1D2, and this is one of the lenses I still have rom my F5 days. I am wondering if anyone knows how the image quality between f2.8 - f4.0 compares between this lens and the new 70-200 f2.8 af-s VR version.
Here are a few (all high ISO - the light was not good) shots from the D3 and the 80-200,
http://homepage.mac.com/billh96007/Trial-Web/PhotoAlbum264.html
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2008
|
|
Skeeter Camby
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 265
|
|
Review Date: Oct 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
|
Very Nice
|
|
|
Oct 3, 2007
|
|
Ronan Gray
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 17, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Oct 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Tack Sharp. Beautiful Colors & bokeh. Fast AF. Wide open f2.8 at all focal lengths.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit heavy.
|
|
|
I bought this lens used from a friend of a friend over the Internet. It looked a bit beaten up when I finally got it and I had a moment of panic. However, I put it on my camera and soon found that it performed flawlessly. Given the external condition, the fact that it still works perfectly is probably a good testament to its durability.
The colors and sharpness are so much better than any other lens that I have owned that I find myself using it when I really should be using a wider or longer lens.
Yes, it's heavy and if I have two cameras going at once I have to be careful not to crack it against anything when it's hanging over my shoulder. But that is a minor price to pay for having a lens that produces such high quality photographs.
I highly recommend this lens. If you are buying one used, be sure that you get the version described at the beginning of this topic. There are several different versions of the 80 - 200mm including an older push-pull version. Make sure it says "AF-S" and "silent wave motor" on the nameplate. There are some unscrupulous sellers out there and the other versions are not as good as this one.
|
|
|
Oct 3, 2007
|
|
ghamden
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 181
|
|
Review Date: Aug 13, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $870.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Ist impression Lens is well built very quick focus
|
|
Cons:
|
No lens hood
|
|
|
Ist impression Lens is well built very quick focus good IQ
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2007
|
|
Alex Lim
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 11, 2007
Location: China
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp even at f2.8 for almost all the focal length. Cheaper compare to the 70-200mm VR. Focusing is quite fast enough for street photo, portrait & some sports. Build like a rock!
|
|
Cons:
|
At 200mm f2.8, minimum focusing distance (about 2-3 meters), it is soft. When close to f4.0, or longer focusing distance, it is very sharp at 200mm.
|
|
This is one of my favorite lens. Although it is not a perfect lens (not exist i believe), but it is fast and sharp lens. The build quality is real pro grade.
I have a gallery specially for this lens in PBase.:
http://www.pbase.com/alexlim/nikkor_80200mm_gallery
You are welcome to have a look and comment.
|
|
|
May 11, 2007
|
|
Chris Kays
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 13, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 138
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $988.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, quick AF, built like a tank.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
This is by far my favorite lens! It does everything I ask of it. It is very sharp and produces some fantastic images!!!
This lens is a great lens for all sports (Golf, Volleyball, Baseball, Football, ect.)
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
41
|
220865
|
Jul 15, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
95% of reviewers
|
$891.55
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.46
|
9.00
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
