Nikon 18-135mm or Nikon 80-200mm F2.8?????

<p>Ok guys I have a chance to buy a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 not the vr but the older one for 200 bucks. I have a Nikon 18-135mm now that I will have to sell to buy the lens. I know the diffrence in zooms of the two but Im wanting pros and cons on both please. So let me here it guys...... And Im also posting a pic of the actual lens so you know what Im talking about.<br />Thanks,<br />Bill<br /><br /><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2727/4031104500_ec8cb74314_o.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2727/4031104500_ec8cb74314_o.jpg</a></p>

<p>The 80-200 would be pretty long as your only lens. I'd much rather have the range of the 18-135 if I was limited to only one or the other.</p>

<p>With that price for an 80-200 2.8, even the early slider, you should try to find a way to afford the $200, though! (Assuming good glass and proper functioning.)</p>

<p>Just to add I shoot a Nikon d80 and a Nikon D1x.</p>

<p>It is a very good price for this lens. If there is nothing wrong, you should be able to sell it for more. Find this kind of deal a couple times, you got the $ you need :-) </p>

<p>Be cautious if the deal sounds too good to be true. There are a lot of scams out there nowadays. $200 is an extraordinarily good or in other words unrealistic for even a well-used (but undamaged and not defective) 80-200 f/2.8 lens. </p>

<p>It's probably not a good idea to sell the 18-135 if that's your only wide/normal lens. Also, a brand new 18-135 can probably be purchased for $200, so don't expect to get as much by selling it. </p>

<p>Take a <strong><em>good</em></strong> look at the 80-200. Close the aperture blades. Do you see anything that looks like water, rust, or oil. Look on both sides and use a flashlight. If you see any of this, pass. This is oil, and it will cause the blades to stick. If you see anything that looks like a small, fine spider web - this is fungus. You can't get rid of it, and it'll get worse. If you see this, pass.</p>

<p>Now take a look at the glass elements - both of them. Any scratches? Do you see any cleaning marks on the coatings? If so, you might have problems when shooting into a brightly-lit subject. If you see either of these, test the lens by shooting with it. If there's a problem, pass.</p>

<p>I'd normally advise you to look through the lens for dust. However, it would take a LOT of dust in a lens to interfere with IQ.</p>

<p>Otherwise, the $200 is a great price - even for the push-pull zoom.</p>

 

<p>for $200 that's a no-brainer. keep the 18-135 if you can</p>

<p>I recently bought the 18-135 for my D70s as a walk around and snap shot lens (it covers the standard Pro focal range equivalent of 24-200 in one lens). I find it to be very sharp, and very convenient. I borrowed an 80-200 a while ago and found it to be big and heavy. Pushing the D70s to 1600 helps the slower, variable aperture of the 18-135. It's a keeper for me. (For my professional work I use a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 HMS and planning to replace my 24-85 f2/8-4 with a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8.)</p>

<p>i'd buy it but won't sell the 18-135mm to get it.</p>

<p>It sounds really tempting, but like other people said, perhaps too good to be true.<br />The 80-200 is a great lens (I got the model with the tripod collar) but it's big and heavy, not a walk around lens, and you miss an important wide / normal view.<br />My suggestion - examine the 80-200 carefully to make sure it's working properly, not damaged and that it's really what you're looking for. If everything is OK with it, take it but only if you can scratch the money to get (even used) 18-55 or 18-70 to complement it...</p>

<p>A lot of good advice has been given already; I just throw in my 2 cents. $200 even for the earlier version of the 80-200 sounds low - so check the lens carefully. Also be prepared for glacial AF speed. Trading in the 18-135 doesn't make sense unless you don't need the wide focal lengths and are happy with the quite limited range of the 80-200.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i'd buy it but won't sell the 18-135mm to get it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's it indeed... A good 80-200 is an excellent lens (but $200 is indeed a bit too low), but it's not practical as your only lens. While a 18-135 is a very nice allrounder, that would be fine as the only lens for most work. So you'd be sacrificing a lot to get f/2.8 and a bit more sharpness. That is - if the 80-200 is worth it at all.</p>