Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D ED-IF !!

<p>Thanks is advance for your help. 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is out of the question for now. My second choice was the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D ED-IF. If I buy this lens, I will give up some very important features available in the 70-200, I already know this. Before I buy it, I need your help. Has anyone of you use it before ? Have you compare this lens vs. the 70-200 if you have both ? When I said "compare", I am talking particularly about optical quality, sharpness. Would you buy it again ? Is it worth the money ? By the way, if I buy it, I will use on my D300 ( with MB-D10 ) for portraits, wild, general purpose, wedding, indoor, etc. </p>

<p>It does not sound that good the comparison, but if this lens is not that good, my third option is to buy the Nikon 105 mm f/2.8 VR instead. This lens has superior sharpness, VR, very sharp at the wide end vs. the other which is a bit soft according to some reviews and the focal range is good for portraiture. Some say it is too sharp for portrait, but I do prefer an extra sharpness rather than softness in the picture. </p>

<p>Best regards, <br>

Maurice.</p>

<p>There are 4 versions of the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF: two with push-pull zoom, one with a permanent tripod collar and one with AF-S and a removable collar.</p>

<p>Exactly which one do you have in mind?</p>

<p>Not the AF, but the D with a permanent tripod collar. The description given by Ken Rockwell is : Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8 D ED-IF ( new ). Thanks Shun, I hope this help you to help me. </p>

<p>Shun, it is the : AF NIKON 80-200 mm f/2.8 D ED </p>

<p>Well, the description given by Ken Rockwell doesn't exactly help :-), but there is only one version that has a permanent tripod collar. It is an AF-D lens with "screwdriver" type AF:<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670406-USA/Nikon_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670406-USA/Nikon_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html</a></p>

<p>There was an old photo.net thread from a decade ago on the different versions: <a href="../bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000nBZ&topic_id=23&topic=photo%2enet">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000nBZ&topic_id=23&topic=photo%2enet</a></p>

<p>Maurice, that 80-200 Nikkor has been available from Nikon brand new for a over a dozens years, and is still in retail in the US. And for goood reason. It is a fantastic lens!</p>

<p>Buy with confidence, you are getting one of Nikon's finest tele-zooms. </p>

<p>I replaced this lens years ago with an 85mm and a 180mm, I wish I would have kept the 80-200 AFD it is an outstaning lens.<br>

I am sure you will be very happy with is, and for portraits will give you a lot more flexablity than the 105 VR.<br>

I don't have any VR lens and I really can't see for my use they would be a benifit, if my shutter speed is low I am on a tripod with a shutter release cable. VR will not stop blur from subject movement, it will only help for camera shake.</p>

<p>Have you considered the original version of the 70-200mm VR lens?</p>

<p>I think the downsides vs. VR2 are:</p>

<ul>

<li>no VR -- important for low light, often helpful for portraits</li>

<li>screwdrive AF -- slower AF, which is important for sports -- this nixed the 80-200 for me and I got the VR2</li>

</ul>

<p>Elliot, yes, I have considered that but still at the moment, it is out of my pocket. <br>

Allan, you are right, the VR2 is much better because of that and optically better by the way but again, it is out of my pocket at the moment. Do you guys think, the 105 f/2.8 VR would be a better option vs. this one ? </p>

<p>Maurice, all versions of Nikon 80-200mm/f2.8 and 70-200mm/f2.8 are good lenses. I have owned all optical formulas among those lenses. (I had the very first version, and all "screwdriver" AF versions have the same optical forumula, and I have had all three AF-S versions.) The best is certainly the latest VR II, but the early ones are still dine. The first VR version has the infamous soft corner issue at 200mm.</p>

<p>If you are shooting weddings and parties, a zoom has its advantages, and VR has some advantages on top of that since frequently it is not practical to use a tripod. In you are shooting inside a studio, I would consider 85mm or 105mm lenses.</p>

<p>Last year, Sigma introduced a 70-200mm/f2.8 OS that has optical image stabilization. Its original price was $1800 and even though it is a fairly good lens, at that price it was not competitive against Nikon equivalents. Recently Sigma has reduced it to $1400. That is a possibility. Just keep in mind that you cannot mount Nikon TC-nnE teleconverters on that Sigma lens unless you modify those TCs. The Sigma lens has a built-in AF motor so that it is equivalent to AF-S.</p>

<p>the only real downside to the 80-200 are lack of VR and heavy weight. if you need one, get one, simple as that.</p>

<p>Maurice,<br>

With regards to the 105 f/2.8VR, I would most certainly not be surprised if it is sharper. It's certainly lighter and smaller.... But, in my view, it can not replace the 80-200; I have the 80-200 and while mostly using a 105mm lens to cover that range, I did really miss the ~200mm end (replaced that with the 180 f/2.8 now).<br>

However, I will most certainly keep the zoom too: it is faster to AF (on a D300, it is quite fast) and the flexibility of the zoom just comes in very handy at times.</p>

<p>So, it really depends on what you want to do with it. But you cannot always make a step back or forth to make a 105 cover the range of a 80-200, and depending on what you do, that might mean missing shots.</p>

<p>Excellent lens, I had it for 5-6 years. Later I replaced it with the 70-200 version1, which shocked(!) me initially with its dreadful tendency to flare in adverse lighting. The 80-200 is much better in that respect. And corners are sharp at 200mm (not that this matters much to me on most images). Sharpness for all practical purposes is beyond reproach. It probably vignettes less as well.<br>

The lens is more compact compared to its successor and built as a tank as the saying goes. So unless you need a VR lens go ahead.</p>

<p>I have the the 80-200MM 2.8D and it is one of the sharpest lenses in my kit. I can't help but wonder if I just got a good sample of this lens, but it is stellar and I will never sell it.<br>

I passed on the VRI and while I could certainly afford the VRII, I will not be buying it. I don't shoot much sports, so VR is not a big plus for me. The 80-200MM has its own advantages. It is smaller and lighter than the VR lenses. Its optical formula is not as complex, so less in the way of potential issues. It has an aperture ring - a plus for some you still shoot with older cameras, etc. Its about half the cost, but way more than half the performance.<br>

Buy the lens new, you will never want to let it go. Here is a sample take with an F6 and this lens. It was shot on Pan-F 50 and scanned on a Nikon 5000. The original file is about 12mp and a 100% crop is provided. </p>

<p>Anthony</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the the 80-200MM 2.8D and it is one of the sharpest lenses in my kit. I can't help but wonder if I just got a good sample of this lens, but it is stellar and I will never sell it.<br /> I passed on the VRI and while I could certainly afford the VRII, I will not be buying it. I don't shoot much sports, so VR is not a big plus for me. The 80-200MM has its own advantages. It is smaller and lighter than the VR lenses. Its optical formula is not as complex, so less in the way of potential issues. It has an aperture ring - a plus for some you still shoot with older cameras, etc. Its about half the cost, but way more than half the performance.<br /> Buy the lens new, you will never want to let it go.</p>

<p>Anthony</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I also have that lens. Bought it locally used for $750. It looked brand new. Outstanding lens. I do miss the VR at times but other than that it is a fine lens. I use the heck out of it and have never had a problem with it. One thing though. It is heavy. It is built like a tank and you feel it after a day of shooting with it. I use a monopod with it whenever I can.</p>

<p>I also have the D version (two ring). It is a super zoom lens. It is tack sharp on my F-5 as well as my D-700. Maybe, I got lucky, but then again, I have never had the focus problems on any of my Nikkors that I read about on various internet forums.<br>

I suppose I could sell it off and buy the VR II that gets rave reviews, but I don't need VR. If you need VR, get it. If not, the 80-200 will not let you down. </p>

<p>Thanks guys. I already placed the order from B&H. I hope to get a good copy of it. Can someone of you post some portraits pictures taken with this lens please ? I would like to see how sharp, color rendition and bokeh please. <br>

Thanks<br>

Maurice.</p>

<p>Here's a shot taken with an F-5 / 80-200mm f2.8 combo on Kodachrome 64.<br />Sorry, no data recorded.</p>