180mm 2.8D or 80-200mm 2.8D

I'm looking for a telephoto lens. I don't have much money to spend, so

these two lenses are the ones in my price range. I would love to get

the 70-200 afs vr, but it's quite a bit more expensive. I've read rave

reviews on both the 180 and the 80-200 nikkor lenses. Any user/owner

opinions?

I own both, and they are both excellent lenses. I have earlier variants since I shoot with manual cameras. With the 80-200mm, I found myself using the extremes of the range the most and not taking as much advantage of the mid-range. The 180mm is a lighter lens than the 80-200mm, and I find over the years that I can hand hold it a lot better to shoot in lower light than I can the heavier lens. I also found that I got tired of lugging the heavier weight around all day. The upshot is that I tend to use the 180mm more often.

I agreed with everything that David said. Having say that the 80-200mm has a definite advantage being that it allow you to compose more easily because of the zoom feature.

If you shoot digital (or plan to), the short end of the 80-200mm may prove more useful (at a 120mm equivalent) than the effective 270mm 180 (on digital). The 300mm at the long end is nice at 2.8 as well. The 80-200mm is a heavy lens, though. Sort of depends on your needs.

John,

 

I've owned both lenses. They're both very, very good in terms of image quality, but I'd have to give the slight edge to the 180mm; negatives/transparencies from the 180 always seemed just a tad crisper. However, the 80-200 zoom obviously is a more versatile lens in every way. Build quality is pretty much the same: excellent.

 

What the previous poster wrote about size and weight should definitely be a consideration. If you plan to use it handheld, the 80-200 can wear you out pretty quickly. It's not something you want to haul around with you in a bag slung over your shoulder when traveling or just doing general shooting. I found myself leaving the thing at home more and more when I went on photo sightseeing trips; you really have to have a good reason to carry a 80-200 2.8 zoom with you. Whatever you do, get the 80-200 version with the tripod collar. On a tripod, or a monopod, it makes a wonderful sports, nature, wildlife, fashion, studio lens.

 

The 180 is really an excellent handheld, low light, fast medium telephoto. If you like this type of photography, then this is your lens. It also makes a wonderful macro setup paired with an extension tube (use the Nikon model with the rotating tripod attachment, forget the model number).

 

Good luck.

John--

 

The item that Sergio mentioned is the PN-11 extension tube. With that, the 180 becomes a wonderful (fairly) closeup lens. I use it a lot that way for shooting dragonflies/butterflies and such.

 

Everything the other posters have told you is spot on. I also own both, and find myself using the 80-200 much more, simply because of what I shoot most often (sports, head shots, weddings, etc.)

 

Still, I like shooting with the 180 better--it is a very light, fast lens that produces beautiful images.

 

Like David said, I find myself most often using the extremes of the zoom range. I've often wondered about just getting the 85/1.8 and using it along with the 180 instead of the zoom. I don't know if the lenses, together, are lighter than the 80-200, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were--certainly, mounted on the camera, you would save a whole lot of weight (and likely be able to get both used for not much more than an 80-200 would cost you).

 

Going that way you would lose, obviously, the ability to zoom, a little bit of length at each end of the range, and the tripod collar. But you would have two much lighter lenses, and gain a little over a stop of speed at the short end.

I have not used these specific lenses but I too found myself always using the extremes of an 80-200mm zoom and mostly the long end. I switched to a 200/2.8. Once I switched I realized the zoom was an advantage for 10% of my shots but the sharper, contrastier prime delivered on the other 90%, so I was more than pleased. I use heavier lenses regularly so the weight of the zoom would not stop me if I found I needed the flexibility more often. I did supplement the 200 with an 85/1.8 but found I did not use it enough to warrant keeping it. The decision really depends on you and what you like to photograph. Good luck!

The 180mm 2.8D is my standard of comparison for all other lenses in this range. None are as sharp at this length - and I am including the 80-200 AF-S and the 70-200 VR (and I wouldn't shoot the consumer lenses at this length except in desperation). The 180 is a great lens for all of the reasons mentioned before, but if you need the zoom range for a particular job, that answers the question. You didn't say what you want to shoot, but personally, for travel, I generally carry the 28-70 AFS and the 20mm or 24mm and 180mm primes.

It all boils down to two things: Flexibility and Image Quality. The zoom is no slouch on image quality, but there is very little light fall-off on the prime wide-open. The prime's sharpness is *legendary* - you have to see it and try it to believe it. The color rendition is also unbelievable.I *loved* the prime, but just found it way too long and could not work the framing requirements (lots of standoff) into my shooting style, so I went with the zoom. You'll be happy with either, but you must carefully take into consideration both factors and make a decision that suits you best.

Thank you all for your very helpful comments. I shoot primarily night photography, landscapes, abstracts (which I tend to do on my macro lens anyway), still life, and pets. Does this information help?

As Armando pointed out, there is very little light falloff on the 180 f/2.8 when it's wide open. There is no light fallof at all at f/4. The zoom has light falloff that's easy to see at f/2.8, and even some at f/4. In other words, if you use the zoom at the long end at f/2.8, the corners of the pictures will be noticeably darker than the middle.

 

This may not bother you at all, or you may put up with it for the convenience of a zoom, or you may never use the lens at f/2.8 or f/4. But, for my taste, darker corners bother me a lot more with a long lens than with a short (wide) lens. With a wider lens, the background is often not uniformly colored or lit, and you rarely notice light falloff. But at 180mm, you frequently have a subject in front of something that is evenly bright across the frame, and then it's easy to see dark corners.

 

So if you're likely to use the lens at f/2.8, you might strongly consider the fixed 180mm just because of the light falloff.

John, good point.

Well, thank you all for your input. The 180mm 2.8D is on its way :)

I own the AF 80~200/2.8D ED (w/ tripod collar). With some

subjects I find myself using the full range of the zoom. There

are times when changing lenses is just not fast enough. This is

where the zoom earns it keep. It doesnt matter that I own

85, 105, 135, 180 and 200mm focal length lenses. If I need to

change focal lengths quickly, I need a zoom.<br>

<br>

The 180/2.8 ED AIS is a great lens and performs famously even

wide open. I love the lens. I have no experience with the AF 180/2.8D

ED-IF but it enjoys a fine reputation. Its lighter than the

80~200/2.8 so hand holding over a period of time will be more

pleasant and it focuses about 0.3m closer.<br>

<br>

I think it comes down to this: do you need the zoom feature? Will

you changing the focal length often and quickly? Each has its

advantages. If you can, cover yourself both ways; if not, chose.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

According to published MTF charts, The 80-200/2.8D AFS is significantly sharper than the non-AFS 80-200/2.8, and is comparable to the prime 180. Performance of the 70-200 VR is virtually identical to the 80-200 AFS.

Does anyone have a portfolio or sample images shot with the 180.

 

Not looking for proof of image quality, but just ideas of what can be done at that particular focal length.

I've had the 180mm AF version for a few years and like it, but I just bought an 80-200 2.8 because I keep missing action shots with the fixed 180mm. You can't zoom with your feet to keep up with kids ona soccer field or your daughter in a gymnastics floor routine.

I've said this before in previous threads...I had a couple 180's and they were superb lenses, even with a 1.4 Nikkor teleconverter. I sold the last one to fund the purchase of a 80-200 AFS which I had to have for editorial and theater assignments. I am extremely satisfied with the 80-200 AFS. It's a spectacular lens! Though it is a monster to carry around (on a monopod or tripod it's great).

 

That said, if I didn't "have" to have the AFS, I'd sell it in a minute and get a 180. It's SO much lighter and convenient to carry.

A great travel kit would be a 20-35, 50 or 85 prime and the 180.

Norman, Pbase.com has some examples taken that that lens and many many others.

I've used both the 180mm f2.8 AIS and the 80-200mm f2.8 AFS lenses. The advice given above is right on target. One other thing to consider is that the minimum focusing distance is closer with the prime than with the zoom.